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…
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.
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.