No historian, legal scholar, or scholar of any type here. But as to executive privilege, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Isn't it pretty much a made-up thing, an idea and practice promulgated from the Eisenhower era and not codified into actual law? And while it may be a now long-practiced rule and "norm", and …
No historian, legal scholar, or scholar of any type here. But as to executive privilege, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Isn't it pretty much a made-up thing, an idea and practice promulgated from the Eisenhower era and not codified into actual law? And while it may be a now long-practiced rule and "norm", and an often practical and useful one, since DFn'T and his cadre of Rule & Norm Busters were all about slaughtering a whole herd of more or less sacred cows, perhaps it's time for some serious exsanguination on this particular one. And what better place to apply the blade than in the shop of the Head Butcher himself? All this EP BS is as appalling as nearly everything else you covered in Morning Shots today.
Btw...Can't say as I care for some of Liz Cheney's politics. But props to her for parkin' her backside in that seat on the Jan. 06 Committee, sitting up ramrod straight and speaking the truth without so much as a blink. All day, every day. She certainly has earned my respect and gratitude for that.
Had DFn'T had balls as big as hers while his sorry ass was seated in the Oval Office with his slimy little mitts directly on the levers of power, things would have turned out much differently. Lucky for us he is, in actuality, that thing he said he was so fond of grabbing. Problem is, too many of the a-holes surrounding him are not. And we need more people like Cheney to kick 'em all right in the nuts. And to keep on kickin' until they can't even crawl, much less walk upright.
While we're cleaning house on useless norms, let's get rid of this "no indicting a sitting President" baloney. These were policies drafted by political appointees to protect their bosses.
Not to mention, people have argued that we can't prosecute Trump for what he did in office because the cost of losing an election shouldn't be going to jail. That's a good argument! A perfect one, in fact, for subjecting sitting Presidents to the law just like everyone else. Especially when removing them from office, regardless of the method, is a political exercise, not a legal one.
If, at least in theory, no one is "above" the law (oh that it was so!), why should someone get a 4-to-8-year time out from it, along with a ticking clock on statute of limitations for a criminal act committed prior to said time out? Might not ever put the fear of God into a sitting president, but a little bit of fear of being prosecuted for a crime might be a good thing. Obviously, we can in no way depend on Congress to solve the problem of a criminal continuing to hold the highest office in the land.
I remember when the possibility of Trump being prosecuted for obstruction of justice was being tossed around (before we realized Mueller had no intention of doing any such thing from the beginning). The statute of limitations - five years. How convenient!
So the doctrine of not prosecuting a sitting President not only creates a criminal penalty for losing re-election, but potentially allows for complete criminal amnesty as a reward for winning re-election.
And at least with Nixon, people had every reason to believe that Congress was fully capable of removing a crook from office (Nixon certainly believed it enough to resign in discrace). Since that's obviously no longer true, and amending the Constitution is sadly all but impossible, I'd say a policy update is in order.
In order and way past due. But the window on that opportunity is closing fast, if not already closed. Midterms are a stone's throw away, and if (when) R's reclaim Congress, that window will be slammed shut, locked and barred. But much, much more importantly, ditto the chance to shore up Fed election system process, which will be the front on which the next assault on our democracy / republic will certainly occur (Electoral College issues.)
I've never been an R or a D for a number of reasons. And until 2016 had often voted a split ticket, again for a number of reasons. As to my current attitude toward the R's, if Jesus Christ were running for Dog Catcher, he couldn't even buy my vote with a Certificate of Salvation notarized by God.
As to the D's, with a clarion call to action on election issues sounding all around them, the Squad and the Moderates (all 2 of them) spent their time pissin' on each other's shoes over $$$$. And so many of the rest have been too damned busy fighting the Culture War to notice a real war is in full swing, being fought with realpolitik on the other side, the practical concern for the other side being their lust for power and their willingness to go all in to get it and then permanently retain it.
The D's habit of bringing a butter knife to a gunfight is bad enough, but this time it's a full-on artillery assault, and, by the look of it, their response will end up being just as lame and ineffectual as always. And time's quickly running out, even if they do by some miracle wake up and get their heads out of the shade of their intestinal tracts.
But if the day comes that our Republic is stained with yellow fruit tint, I probably won't be as angry at the R's for having cast the dye as with the D's for having failed to prevent it when they had the opportunity. After all, the R's have become ever increasingly honest about who and what they are now, firing their shots in broad open daylight from statehouses across the nation as opposed to sniping from smoke filled back rooms. Gotta' admit they've become great tacticians, while the D's tactics to defend our nation against this assault are...well, what are they again exactly? Jan 6 Commission? Good. And absolutely needed. But you could lock up the whole lot tomorrow, and the rounds from the statehouses would still be incoming. In the broader theater of this conflict, it's a flak jacket defense against a howitzer.
OK, sorry for the rant. Haven't had my coffee yet and feeling a bit grumpy, I suppose. Not too often prone to being "triggered", but I guess the word "policy" sort of pulled it for me this time. And I just feel that if we become a DRINO (democratic republic in name only), "policy" ain't gonna' matter much, since it will be whatever the powers that be say it is, period. So, the only "policy" I'm really concerned with at the moment is one that will prevent this from becoming a reality.
I hope I'm wrong on this. I pray I'm wrong. Nothing would brighten my day more than to be wrong. I suppose time will tell. Guess in the meantime I'd better get that cup of Joe.
Believe me, I feel you on almost all of this. Especially the part about hoping to be wrong. Not an easy trait to nurture these days.
Which is, ultimately, our problem isn't it? Too many people digging their heels in on bad ideas when they ought to know better. Too many who would rather risk everything we all hold dear than have to acknowledge being wrong.
Oh and don't worry, I'm fairly confident Jesus would never run as a Republican. He'd get destroyed in the primary. 😏
Right back at ya' on every word. I'm as human as anyone, and when told I'm wrong about something, even when I know it to be true from the jump, I can feel the self-defense mechanisms powering themselves up. Takes some practice to be able to power 'em down sometimes, and even after all these years I'm not nearly as good at it as I would like to be. But, at least I'm aware of the problem, even if I don't get it right each and every time. And that's not nothing, I suppose.
But I'll tell you what, I'd so much like to be wrong about this I'd even pay serious money to be so. And I don't part with my hard-earned $$ very easily these days. Hell, I'll even up the ante and say that if it could be proven for sure and for certain that I'm completely wrong about this, I'd happily march on down to The Sunshine State, tell a certain someone to drop his drawers, and bend over and kiss his big fat ass.
Think anyone on the other side of this ugly divide feels the same way? Not likely, I think. Because most of them are so emotionally invested in the whole damned narrative that powers their anger and sense of grievance that the thought of being wrong is a threat to their very being. And that's what makes them and this whole situation so freakin' dangerous.
Had that coffee and am little less grumpy now. Your thoughtful words also helped, so thanks for that.
Nah, not really. I left out the part about after kissing it, opening wide and taking out as big a chunk of it as I possibly could and tellin' the s.o.b. "That's for all the trouble you've caused."
Read somewhere that was also part of the effort to get Spiro the Bag Man Agnew out of office. If I recall, there was some speculation that there were those who saw the prospect of Nixon either being impeached and removed or resigning and Agnew moving to the Oval Office to be even more grim than Nixon remaining in power, since bags of kick-back cash lying about on the desk of the President might not be a good look. And Nixon, knowing this, wasn't above using it as leverage. So, the memo also had the purpose of reassuring him (Tricky Dick) that the Justice Department wouldn't come gunning for him, and thus smooth the way for Agnew's departure.
Don't know if that's completely true, but it's an interesting theory.
Spiro Agnew...now, you talk about a guy that needed a little prosecutin'...
Ah, the Good Old Days, when crime and corruption at the top were so much simpler and straight forward...just a garden variety illegal cover-up, and some actual cold, hard, ill-gotten cash. Kind of makes me a little misty...
And a general public that wasn't so easily conned into accepting this sort of thing. It's no surprise that the Nixon Administration was the genesis of Roger Ailes' long, depressingly successful odyssey to create the right-wing media ecosystem we have today.
I remember when Trump infamously noted that the difference between him and Nixon was that Nixon gave up, and Trump never would. It was revealing.
Because Nixon, for all his faults, was a normal person. An exceptional person, actually, forged from meager beginnings. He grew up a poor Quaker on a farm. Two of his four brothers died young - one at the age of seven and one at around 24. The latter's illness (from tuberculosis) kept him from moving away from his hometown to attend Harvard on scholarship. In high school he ran for student government. He enlisted in the Navy during WWII even though as a Quaker he could have gotten an easy deferment. He knew hardship and hard work, and had a clear sense of civic duty. Power corrupted him, because in the end he was still human.
Trump is, like many who are raised in wealth, something akin to a sociopath. His entire life has been lacking the normal boundaries, restraints, and challenges that sculpt most people's character. He never performed a drop of public service in life, and at times seems to literally lack comprehension of moral and ethical norms. He is completely without shame or any principle beyond his own self-preservation. This is what makes him so terrifyingly unique.
Yeah, unlike DFn'T, Tricky Dick wasn't completely rotten to the core. Whatever his motivation for doing so, he did do the right thing in the end. And though I recall hearing he had some issue about his taxes, I don't think he was exactly lining his pockets while in office.
One thing that has been completely lost in the discussion of executive privilege is that it doesn't apply to all, or even most, communications by the President. Executive privilege protects presidential communications which are deliberative in nature, i.e. they have to do with the development of policy. An example might be the President talking to an advisor about what policy to have toward Israel. The idea behind executive privilege is that we want the President to have a frank and open exchange of ideas when developing policy. If those involved know those communications might be made public, the advice to the President may be constrained. Even if Trump was still President, his communications relating to what happened on January 6th are not even remotely covered by executive privilege. They have nothing - zero - to do with the development of policy.
Hey TC...thanks for your observation. Noted I wasn't the least bit scholarly, but do recall - now that you mention it - reading somewhere about the Washington thing and its relationship to what we've come to call executive privilege. I would have put it better had I said that according to my admittedly light weight understanding of history, the whole EP thing really began to take off about the time noted, and has become an increasingly powerful (and legally questionable) shade against sunshine illuminating nefarious goings-on in the Oval Office and elsewhere. I could be wrong, and please don't ask me to recall where I read about that premise. I don't remember what I had for breakfast this morning besides coffee. (My memory can sometimes be a bit light weight these days as well.)
But I'd be interested in your opinion about the gist of what I was trying to say, that perhaps it's time for some bloodletting for this particular sacred cow in certain circumstances, such as those we find ourselves in at the moment regarding all things Jan. 06?
If I am not mistaken, it goes back further than that, being rooted in the English monarchy and the unwritten English constitution. There is a surprising amount of stuff in US law and politics that goes back to English common law and political practice.
No historian, legal scholar, or scholar of any type here. But as to executive privilege, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Isn't it pretty much a made-up thing, an idea and practice promulgated from the Eisenhower era and not codified into actual law? And while it may be a now long-practiced rule and "norm", and an often practical and useful one, since DFn'T and his cadre of Rule & Norm Busters were all about slaughtering a whole herd of more or less sacred cows, perhaps it's time for some serious exsanguination on this particular one. And what better place to apply the blade than in the shop of the Head Butcher himself? All this EP BS is as appalling as nearly everything else you covered in Morning Shots today.
Btw...Can't say as I care for some of Liz Cheney's politics. But props to her for parkin' her backside in that seat on the Jan. 06 Committee, sitting up ramrod straight and speaking the truth without so much as a blink. All day, every day. She certainly has earned my respect and gratitude for that.
Had DFn'T had balls as big as hers while his sorry ass was seated in the Oval Office with his slimy little mitts directly on the levers of power, things would have turned out much differently. Lucky for us he is, in actuality, that thing he said he was so fond of grabbing. Problem is, too many of the a-holes surrounding him are not. And we need more people like Cheney to kick 'em all right in the nuts. And to keep on kickin' until they can't even crawl, much less walk upright.
Go girl!
While we're cleaning house on useless norms, let's get rid of this "no indicting a sitting President" baloney. These were policies drafted by political appointees to protect their bosses.
Not to mention, people have argued that we can't prosecute Trump for what he did in office because the cost of losing an election shouldn't be going to jail. That's a good argument! A perfect one, in fact, for subjecting sitting Presidents to the law just like everyone else. Especially when removing them from office, regardless of the method, is a political exercise, not a legal one.
If, at least in theory, no one is "above" the law (oh that it was so!), why should someone get a 4-to-8-year time out from it, along with a ticking clock on statute of limitations for a criminal act committed prior to said time out? Might not ever put the fear of God into a sitting president, but a little bit of fear of being prosecuted for a crime might be a good thing. Obviously, we can in no way depend on Congress to solve the problem of a criminal continuing to hold the highest office in the land.
I remember when the possibility of Trump being prosecuted for obstruction of justice was being tossed around (before we realized Mueller had no intention of doing any such thing from the beginning). The statute of limitations - five years. How convenient!
So the doctrine of not prosecuting a sitting President not only creates a criminal penalty for losing re-election, but potentially allows for complete criminal amnesty as a reward for winning re-election.
And at least with Nixon, people had every reason to believe that Congress was fully capable of removing a crook from office (Nixon certainly believed it enough to resign in discrace). Since that's obviously no longer true, and amending the Constitution is sadly all but impossible, I'd say a policy update is in order.
In order and way past due. But the window on that opportunity is closing fast, if not already closed. Midterms are a stone's throw away, and if (when) R's reclaim Congress, that window will be slammed shut, locked and barred. But much, much more importantly, ditto the chance to shore up Fed election system process, which will be the front on which the next assault on our democracy / republic will certainly occur (Electoral College issues.)
I've never been an R or a D for a number of reasons. And until 2016 had often voted a split ticket, again for a number of reasons. As to my current attitude toward the R's, if Jesus Christ were running for Dog Catcher, he couldn't even buy my vote with a Certificate of Salvation notarized by God.
As to the D's, with a clarion call to action on election issues sounding all around them, the Squad and the Moderates (all 2 of them) spent their time pissin' on each other's shoes over $$$$. And so many of the rest have been too damned busy fighting the Culture War to notice a real war is in full swing, being fought with realpolitik on the other side, the practical concern for the other side being their lust for power and their willingness to go all in to get it and then permanently retain it.
The D's habit of bringing a butter knife to a gunfight is bad enough, but this time it's a full-on artillery assault, and, by the look of it, their response will end up being just as lame and ineffectual as always. And time's quickly running out, even if they do by some miracle wake up and get their heads out of the shade of their intestinal tracts.
But if the day comes that our Republic is stained with yellow fruit tint, I probably won't be as angry at the R's for having cast the dye as with the D's for having failed to prevent it when they had the opportunity. After all, the R's have become ever increasingly honest about who and what they are now, firing their shots in broad open daylight from statehouses across the nation as opposed to sniping from smoke filled back rooms. Gotta' admit they've become great tacticians, while the D's tactics to defend our nation against this assault are...well, what are they again exactly? Jan 6 Commission? Good. And absolutely needed. But you could lock up the whole lot tomorrow, and the rounds from the statehouses would still be incoming. In the broader theater of this conflict, it's a flak jacket defense against a howitzer.
OK, sorry for the rant. Haven't had my coffee yet and feeling a bit grumpy, I suppose. Not too often prone to being "triggered", but I guess the word "policy" sort of pulled it for me this time. And I just feel that if we become a DRINO (democratic republic in name only), "policy" ain't gonna' matter much, since it will be whatever the powers that be say it is, period. So, the only "policy" I'm really concerned with at the moment is one that will prevent this from becoming a reality.
I hope I'm wrong on this. I pray I'm wrong. Nothing would brighten my day more than to be wrong. I suppose time will tell. Guess in the meantime I'd better get that cup of Joe.
Believe me, I feel you on almost all of this. Especially the part about hoping to be wrong. Not an easy trait to nurture these days.
Which is, ultimately, our problem isn't it? Too many people digging their heels in on bad ideas when they ought to know better. Too many who would rather risk everything we all hold dear than have to acknowledge being wrong.
Oh and don't worry, I'm fairly confident Jesus would never run as a Republican. He'd get destroyed in the primary. 😏
Right back at ya' on every word. I'm as human as anyone, and when told I'm wrong about something, even when I know it to be true from the jump, I can feel the self-defense mechanisms powering themselves up. Takes some practice to be able to power 'em down sometimes, and even after all these years I'm not nearly as good at it as I would like to be. But, at least I'm aware of the problem, even if I don't get it right each and every time. And that's not nothing, I suppose.
But I'll tell you what, I'd so much like to be wrong about this I'd even pay serious money to be so. And I don't part with my hard-earned $$ very easily these days. Hell, I'll even up the ante and say that if it could be proven for sure and for certain that I'm completely wrong about this, I'd happily march on down to The Sunshine State, tell a certain someone to drop his drawers, and bend over and kiss his big fat ass.
Think anyone on the other side of this ugly divide feels the same way? Not likely, I think. Because most of them are so emotionally invested in the whole damned narrative that powers their anger and sense of grievance that the thought of being wrong is a threat to their very being. And that's what makes them and this whole situation so freakin' dangerous.
Had that coffee and am little less grumpy now. Your thoughtful words also helped, so thanks for that.
Ok you've got me beat with that one. You're a better person than l am! 😅
Nah, not really. I left out the part about after kissing it, opening wide and taking out as big a chunk of it as I possibly could and tellin' the s.o.b. "That's for all the trouble you've caused."
I stand behind my previous comment. 😂
Read somewhere that was also part of the effort to get Spiro the Bag Man Agnew out of office. If I recall, there was some speculation that there were those who saw the prospect of Nixon either being impeached and removed or resigning and Agnew moving to the Oval Office to be even more grim than Nixon remaining in power, since bags of kick-back cash lying about on the desk of the President might not be a good look. And Nixon, knowing this, wasn't above using it as leverage. So, the memo also had the purpose of reassuring him (Tricky Dick) that the Justice Department wouldn't come gunning for him, and thus smooth the way for Agnew's departure.
Don't know if that's completely true, but it's an interesting theory.
Spiro Agnew...now, you talk about a guy that needed a little prosecutin'...
Ah, the Good Old Days, when crime and corruption at the top were so much simpler and straight forward...just a garden variety illegal cover-up, and some actual cold, hard, ill-gotten cash. Kind of makes me a little misty...
And a general public that wasn't so easily conned into accepting this sort of thing. It's no surprise that the Nixon Administration was the genesis of Roger Ailes' long, depressingly successful odyssey to create the right-wing media ecosystem we have today.
I remember when Trump infamously noted that the difference between him and Nixon was that Nixon gave up, and Trump never would. It was revealing.
Because Nixon, for all his faults, was a normal person. An exceptional person, actually, forged from meager beginnings. He grew up a poor Quaker on a farm. Two of his four brothers died young - one at the age of seven and one at around 24. The latter's illness (from tuberculosis) kept him from moving away from his hometown to attend Harvard on scholarship. In high school he ran for student government. He enlisted in the Navy during WWII even though as a Quaker he could have gotten an easy deferment. He knew hardship and hard work, and had a clear sense of civic duty. Power corrupted him, because in the end he was still human.
Trump is, like many who are raised in wealth, something akin to a sociopath. His entire life has been lacking the normal boundaries, restraints, and challenges that sculpt most people's character. He never performed a drop of public service in life, and at times seems to literally lack comprehension of moral and ethical norms. He is completely without shame or any principle beyond his own self-preservation. This is what makes him so terrifyingly unique.
Yeah, unlike DFn'T, Tricky Dick wasn't completely rotten to the core. Whatever his motivation for doing so, he did do the right thing in the end. And though I recall hearing he had some issue about his taxes, I don't think he was exactly lining his pockets while in office.
Congrats on that review, btw.
One thing that has been completely lost in the discussion of executive privilege is that it doesn't apply to all, or even most, communications by the President. Executive privilege protects presidential communications which are deliberative in nature, i.e. they have to do with the development of policy. An example might be the President talking to an advisor about what policy to have toward Israel. The idea behind executive privilege is that we want the President to have a frank and open exchange of ideas when developing policy. If those involved know those communications might be made public, the advice to the President may be constrained. Even if Trump was still President, his communications relating to what happened on January 6th are not even remotely covered by executive privilege. They have nothing - zero - to do with the development of policy.
Except for the quintessential, overarching policy of DFn'T 1st & foremost, always.
Hey TC...thanks for your observation. Noted I wasn't the least bit scholarly, but do recall - now that you mention it - reading somewhere about the Washington thing and its relationship to what we've come to call executive privilege. I would have put it better had I said that according to my admittedly light weight understanding of history, the whole EP thing really began to take off about the time noted, and has become an increasingly powerful (and legally questionable) shade against sunshine illuminating nefarious goings-on in the Oval Office and elsewhere. I could be wrong, and please don't ask me to recall where I read about that premise. I don't remember what I had for breakfast this morning besides coffee. (My memory can sometimes be a bit light weight these days as well.)
But I'd be interested in your opinion about the gist of what I was trying to say, that perhaps it's time for some bloodletting for this particular sacred cow in certain circumstances, such as those we find ourselves in at the moment regarding all things Jan. 06?
If I am not mistaken, it goes back further than that, being rooted in the English monarchy and the unwritten English constitution. There is a surprising amount of stuff in US law and politics that goes back to English common law and political practice.