For what it’s worth, I think a lot of people are misreading Merrick Garland. Not that any of us know him or has an inside track!
Garland is an institutionalist, and certainly indicting a former president is something he is loathe to do because it sets a terrible precedent going forward. But to not indict a former president who has broken the law, clearly and repeatedly, sets an even worse precedent.
I feel strongly that the belief that “no one is above the law” + interfering with the peaceful transition of power + armed insurrection + conspiracy to overthrow the government + stealing presidential documents, top secret and higher + flipping off the government after you are no longer president is a combination that Merrick Garland cannot ignore.
That is just not going to happen on Merrick Garland’s watch.
If they can make the case against Trump, I believe they will indict Trump.
*I wrote this post before the news about Biden discovering classified documents broke, but I don’t think that changes a thing about how Merrick Garland, the DOJ, and Jack Smith will proceed in relations to the former president.
**Oh, and in terms of what the Gym Jordan and the House will be trying to do, I’ll just put this here.
Narrator: We have reached the part where Jim creates a select committee of characters being investigated for trying to overturn an election, so they can meddle in their own investigation.
Jim believes he can break the DOJ.
Jim gonna find out.
— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) January 9, 2023
Open thread.
Baud
I’m more outside the law than above it.
Old School
Slow and steady. Dotting all the I’s and crossing all the T’s.
EthylEster
I am confused. Or naive. Or both.
These twitter postings, are they real or is this complete parody?
randy khan)
@EthylEster:
I believe that this is a real person named Jack Smith, but not the Jack Smith who is the special counsel. So it’s somewhere in the vague range of commentary and parody. He’s been getting a fair amount of notice lately for what I guess are obvious reasons.
schrodingers_cat
@EthylEster: I doubt they are real.
Steeplejack
@EthylEster:
Parody accounts.
ETA: From Smith’s profile: “Here for people, politics and PARODY.”
WaterGirl
@EthylEster: it’s parody, but I think there’s truth to what he saying.
Betty Cracker
I don’t know what’s in Garland’s mind, but it’s hard to see how the discovery that Biden’s VP office had classified docs doesn’t affect the decision to charge Trump or not. As everyone has been saying for months, the DOJ has to make sure it can convict. The Biden docs discovery hands the Trump defense a very compelling argument against conviction. It doesn’t matter if the two situations aren’t comparable; all the Trump defense team needs is reasonable doubt. It sucks, but I think the likelihood that Trump will be charged dropped considerably yesterday.
WaterGirl
@Betty Cracker: looks like we disagree on this , so one of us will be right, and one of us will be wrong, whichever it is, I suspect we’ll know in the next few weeks.
Spanky
@Betty Cracker:
Not at all. Even after the docs were discovered and he was asked to return them, Trump continued to hide them, even moving them around. He openly flaunted the law, and for this he’s going down.
Each case will be weighed on its own merits, and I doubt that Biden’s case will get more than the usual slap on the wrist, since the docs were reported and returned as soon as they were discovered.
WaterGirl
Remember, they discovered these documents in the fall, and so even though it hasn’t been public news, Biden and Garland and Jack Smith have all known about it for a while. And just this week, Jack Smith hired two big guns to have a history of being very aggressive with charging well-known people, high status people with corruption.
I guess we’ll see.
Dangerman
If Trump isn’t indicted and somehow gets the nomination in 2024, I don’t need a crystal ball to predict what happens in early November, 2024.
EtA: when he loses again
NotMax
While I can understand the treading carefully because an indictment is unprecedented, what Dolt 45 engaged in was by any measure all caps UNPRECEDENTED. An indictment being legally sound does not negate political risk but the vast scope of demonstrated extremity of misfeasance calls for extremity of duty, IMHO.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Spanky: IANAL, but it’s always a crap shoot with juries, isn’t it. I wondered last week if trial lawyers (edited, dammit) don’t have their own version of Mo Udall’s (I think it was Mo) “The people have spoken. The bastards.” As Saul Goodman told prosecutors, I only need one.
Rachel Maddow made the case last night that the Biden case could potentially offer a useful contrast in telling the story to jurors of what trump should have done, and didn’t.
Another thing I wonder about: Would prosecutors be able to tell a jury what’s in trump’s documents? My pretty un-informed guess (I watch cable TV! and I used to watch courtroom dramas) is that the more serious the documents were, the less likely it is that the content could be discussed in open court. I remember some talk about rulings before FISA-like courts where such material is reviewed by judges with special clearance, but I can’t imagine how that fits in with a jury trial
Betty Cracker
@WaterGirl: & @Spanky: I sure hope y’all are right! Still, it’s hard to see how the MSM treatment of the cases (both sides!) doesn’t affect the opinion of people who don’t pay a lot of attention to this stuff (i.e., the very people who would be on a jury should charges be leveled). Presumably, prosecutors have to take that into account in their decision. We’ll have to wait and see.
cain
@Baud: I’m kind of outer-dimensional- I mean I’m outside the law on Earth-4, but really in it in Earth-2.
Spanky
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: It’s irrelevant what is in those documents. Any trial will be about Obstruction of Justice, his refusal to return them. Contents won’t matter.
Amir Khalid
@Spanky:
Ahem.
Spanky
@Betty Cracker: The Biden case will never be prosecuted. There’s a WaPo article on this today, and it says
Spanky
@Amir Khalid: !!!!!
My face, he is red.
Layer8Problem
@Amir Khalid: Thank you. I was jiggering up and down in my seat saying “Should I? Should I?” and you already had.
$8 blue check mistermix
My take is that ultimately it won’t matter, politically, whether or not the DoJ indicts. Trump can delay trial for years, and an indictment will probably just add more energy to the MAGA hats. The DoJ is not going to fix this. Democrats need to beat Republicans at the ballot box.
Westyny
@Baud: To live outside the law you must be honest – R. Zimmerman
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: Political theorist Bob Dylan posits that “to live outside the law, you must be honest.”
zhena gogolia
@Amir Khalid: Haha, yeah, pedants to the barricades!
Omnes Omnibus
@Westyny: Bastard!
Baud
@Spanky:
What about people who flaunt the rules?
gene108
@Betty Cracker:
This right here is the truth.
Outside of some almost top-10,000 liberal blogs, there ain’t no media platform in this country that can explain the difference to the masses in a clear concise way that cuts through the right-wing noise machine.
Trump ain’t getting indicted for jackshit by the Feds. If he is indicted he’ll beat the rap. He didn’t explicitly write in Sharpie, “please overthrow the government and install me as President for life”, so all the “evidence” against the TFG is a bunch of accusations against him by a bunch of goons neck deep in TFG’s various acts of corruption.
None of them are credible
TFG defense counsel “if you thought the risk of a riot was a real possibility, why didn’t you resign and inform the public?”
Team “normal”, “uh…thought I could do something working on the inside…uh…yeah…coulda done something…”
Also, this isn’t some cold case murder investigation that can be kept open for decades. At some point the DOJ is going to have to take people to trial and get convictions or the people in charge will be Republicans again and the investigations scrapped.
DOJ doesn’t have infinite time. It’s either indictments this year or hope Biden’s re-elected in 2024.
schrodingers_cat
@$8 blue check mistermix: I agree Trump and Trumpism are political problems and the solution to that is beating the Trumpist Rs at the ballot box.
The jury is out on whether Orange ends up in an orange jumpsuit. He definitely has it coming. I will defer to lawyers and their expertise here.
Layer8Problem
@Westyny, @Omnes Omnibus:
If two highly similar responses occur from two separate commenters in consecutive comments, isn’t there an elaborate BJ ritual that has to be performed to restore balance in the universe?
Baud
I flaunt the law and the law won.
I flaunt the law and the law won.
Spanky
This looks like it’s going to be one of those threads where there are more comments on word usage than the OP. Sigh.
Amir Khalid
@Betty Cracker:
We don’t know yet if Biden personally had anything to do with those files being mislaid. It seems entirely plausible that a subordinate was supposed to return the files, and misplaced them. I’d wait until the Trump appointee Garland has assigned to look into the case has something to say.
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: And here I thought that you were law unto yourself.
King Baud of Balloon Juice.
bbleh
@Betty Cracker: & also @WaterGirl: @Spanky: I disagree. First, a major — if not THE major — part of the case against Trump is not possession but obstruction. It took MONTHS of asking, being stonewalled and then misled by Trump’s lawyers, and finally a search warrant, to recover the OVER ONE HUNDRED documents Trump had, some of them clearly in his personal possession. The Biden people discovered the TEN documents in an office affiliated with him– not clear yet in whose possession — and turned them over without ever being asked. And there is ample evidence of Trump’s intent to obstruct, eg the boxes being moved out of the closet even after assurances they wouldn’t be. The Biden (or Biden’s staff) documents are evidence only that things do slip through the cracks, which would have been a plausible defense in any case
Jim, Foolish Literalist: this would seem to go more to an espionage charge, which I agree is less likely for precisely the reason that prosecutors would have to discuss the nature of the information in order for the jury to decide whether its release might damage national security (recall that “classification” status is not part of the statute). But IANAL either.
MattF
@Betty Cracker: It’s a fact of life that classified documents have an uncanny ability to find their way into places they shouldn’t be. Anyone who has used or stored them knows this. I once found a classified report crumpled up under a file cabinet drawer— how it got there is a mystery. Back in the old days people were less careful, but nowadays keeping this stuff nearby for convenience or for reference is just dumb— it goes into a SCIF and, happily, is someone else’s problem.
Omnes Omnibus
@Amir Khalid: Ahem.
piratedan
well….. if no one is above the law, prove it and indict him already.
Spanky
@bbleh:
Yes, he clearly flaunted the law.
ian
O/T but it appears Katie Porter has decided to run for senate in 2024.
I know we have a good deal of California peeps, what are some thoughts?
RobertB
@Spanky: Don’t worry about it, it’s a mute point anyway.
Shalimar
My personal opinion based on public information is that Garland really wanted January 6th to go away, DoJ did relatively nothing to investigate anyone other than garden-variety rioters for all of 2021 (admittedly prosecuting that many people at once was a huge undertaking in and of itself), and they finally realized a year ago with the first known Grand Jury that Republicans would campaign on insurrection if they weren’t investigated and punished.
The last year has been much closer to what should have happened from the start.
artem1s
IANAL but my take on the Biden documents is the GOP and MSM have their ButHerEmails to obsess over now. They will ride that horse all the way to the general in 2024. There will be hearings called for in the House and given the subject I expect Qevin will have to allow them no matter what he wants to do. But as has been noted by other jackals, this is criminally a giant nothing burger and the GOP doesn’t have Barr around to run interference for them with the DOJ. And this administration has become a pro at dispelling the misinformation in ways that previous administrations never figured out. My bet is with Dark Brandon on this one. He gets to talk about what TFG should have done and then tell the WH press core to go F themselves.
Cameron
@Baud: “He flaunted that rule like a 12-inch dick! Haw, haw, haw.”
Baud
I think the Biden documents are a distraction from Hunter Biden’s dick.
VOR
IANAL but there are big differences between the Trump and Biden documents case. Biden’s team contacted the Archives and returned the documents. The Archives had to contact Trump, who refused to return documents and lied about it. Biden had a security clearance at the time, Trump did not after he left the White House. Biden’s documents were reportedly in a locked room, albeit probably not a SCIF (don’t think we know). Trump kept his in a desk drawer and a room next to the pool at his resort. Biden’s documents were classified, but we don’t know the level of classification. As we saw in the HRC case, they retroactively classified press articles. We know Trump had documents with extremely high classification levels. I’ve no doubt TFG will claim this exonerates him but I am confident a good prosecutor can explain the differences.
narya
Marcy Wheeler is reporting that personal docs of Biden’s–including funeral arrangements for Beau–were mixed in w/ the papers. All of that said, I really don’t think it’s an insurmountable obstacle to prosecute TFG if that’s both the direction AND the activity they want to prosecute. I would start the whole thing by bringing up not just this example but several others, where someone “mishandled” docs and then took all the right steps. The contrast with TFG will be even more clear that way.
Frankensteinbeck
@Betty Cracker:
Like Spanky said, exactly the reason liberals have been complaining about the slow process is why this event won’t matter. All along, the DoJ has bent over backwards to give Trump a chance to say “Oops, just a mistake!” They now have a mountain of evidence that no, it was absolutely not a mistake. If Biden is relevant, it’s only to go “See? We gave Trump the chance to do this, and he lied and hid the files and then when we got them screamed at us to give them back.” The Biden thing doesn’t give Trump cover for reasonable doubt. In court it’s going to be god damn DAYS of evidence laid out how Trump didn’t make an innocent mistake, all while Trump shrieks that those documents are his, because the dumb fuck just does not seem able to understand he’s making things worse.
VOR
@Shalimar: As I said at the time, the incoming Biden administration should have put yellow crime scene tape around EVERYTHING and conducted forensic audits on all actions of TFG’s administration. I admit, that would have been hard to do with normal activity underway, an intentionally impaired transition process, and, oh yeah, ongoing global pandemic.
Baud
God, I hope it doesn’t come out that Biden tried to overthrow the government.
Shalimar
@narya: Personal docs mixed in just means they were kept in the same place when Biden was VP as whatever classified docs they found. It is extemely unlikely that Biden personally had anything to do with packing them up and moving them to storage. That is what staff are for.
MomSense
@Spanky:
Didn’t the search warrant and supporting documentation cite espionage? I’m wondering if they picked something up from foreign surveillance. I mean we all know that trump would not have been above selling secrets but I figured they had some evidence to make that claim.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
The ballot box, and the impeachment process. That’s the process where the standard of “Oh my god he’s so obviously fucking guilty!” applies, the standard so many twitter (and blog-comment) lawyers who never took the LSATs are so angry Garland isn’t applying to the complicated criminal trial process. Mitch McConnell let trump off.
tobie
@$8 blue check mistermix: Agree. The divisions in the public are political and courts of law can’t fix that…which is not to say indictments don’t matter, just that they won’t do anything to address polarization.
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: It makes no legal difference at all.
frosty
@Betty Cracker: @WaterGirl: Sorry WG, But I’m on Team Betty Cracker because I suspect this will quickly be parlayed into reasonable doubt. If it fades from the news in a few days, then I will petition to be traded to Team WaterGirl.
FastEdD
@ian: My first thoughts were that Katie Porter knows something we don’t about DiFi running again in 2024. Like most of us, I hope DiFi calls it a career and retires gracefully. Rep. Porter mentioned the top two jungle primary system. There are other CA Dems lining up for that seat as well, Adam Schiff for one. Perhaps they are aiming for the top two to both be Dems.
Geminid
@Spanky: Bring on the pedant hoards!
Westyny
@Omnes Omnibus: Heh. Sorry.
JMG
I believe I have posted this before, but it bears repeating, I think. My wife’s best friend since college, the maid of honor at our wedding, is a recently retired (2018) career Dept. of Justice official. She says that her encounters with Garland when he was a federal judge left her sure of two things. One, he is a brilliant and deep legal mind. Two, he is the straightest of arrows, a stickler for procedure and utterly incapable of thinking of the law in terms of politics.
I deduce from her opinions that if/when Garland takes a shot at Trump or other GOP pols, he’s not gonna miss.
Betty Cracker
@MattF: I don’t understand why there’s no system to keep track of everything. I’m no expert on classification or archiving, but it seems like it would be possible to create a basic, central system (for each agency, for all agencies, whatever) that indicates who has what document.
Reading between the lines of the actions taken to recover documents Trump had, it seems like the feds knew he took stuff, had an idea of what some of it was but also weren’t aware of the extent of the holdings. How can that be? What do I know, but the honor system seems like a dangerous and inefficient way to deal with state secrets.
Frankensteinbeck
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve been told X was going to be Biden’s ButHerEmails, I’d be able to buy Twitter right now. Remember Tara Reade?
zhena gogolia
@JMG: That testimony accords with what I observe about him, although of course I’ve never met him. Good to have it confirmed.
frosty
@Geminid: Surely you meant the pendant hoards.
West of the Rockies
Are those Jack Smith Tweets really Jack Smith or a parody account?
Cacti
Garland is either a coward or genuinely believes the ruling class is above the law.
feebog
@Betty Cracker:
Whoa, lets not get ahead of ourselves here. First, we don’t know what these documents were, how many there were, what level of classification they were (yes that matters) or even if they were actually classified at the time they were handled. Also we don’t know who may have handled them, who procured them, who was responsible for returning them, or how they got misplaced. It’s significant that the National Archives had no record of these documents or knew they were missing. What we do know is that once discovered, the documents were handled properly and promptly returned to the archives. Also important to note that Garland assigned a USA to review, not investigate the matter, there is a difference. Of course a review can always turn into an investigation, but I doubt that this will be the case here.
zhena gogolia
@West of the Rockies: Parody. That guy in the purple Hague robes doesn’t tweet or twat.
Nope
None. Of. These. People.Are.Going.To. Save.This.Country
They are there to save the institutions. They don’t care about “the people” or “the law.”
Sorry, not taking any of the hopium or waiting for Fitzmas to come.
artem1s
@Cacti:
pied
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Huh. This happened yesterday and it’s the first I’m hearing of it after having spent far too much time consuming political media (from CNN)
highlighting to emphasize that we don’t always know what’s going on
sdhays
@Dangerman: I assume you’re referring to the January 6 redux in 2025 where hordes of confused MAGATs descend upon and ransack the Capitol Grill in Tyson’s, VA, screaming for the heads of Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Kamala Harris, Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy and wondering where the Speaker’s office is.
Betty Cracker
@$8 blue check mistermix:
That was the takeaway from Maddow’s “Ultra” podcast about the 1940s attempt to overthrow the government and replace it with a fascist dictatorship. The DOJ tried back then, but there were cases of jury nullification, politically motivated special prosecutor firings, etc., and ultimately voters had to step up to save democracy.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cacti: Counsel for peasants with torches and pitchforks has entered an appearance.
Spanky
@Frankensteinbeck:
No.
Cacti
@artem1s: Oh no. How will I keep living.
MattF
@Betty Cracker: First of all, there’s a vast ocean of paper— recall those scenes in ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ of endless corridors of secret artifacts? The joke is that it’s not a joke.
And, at high levels of classification, relevant documents are closely held by specifically tasked groups in the government. They’re not going to let anyone without a documented need-to-know through the door.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@sdhays: I don’t usually do this but…
liberate the Bloomin’ Onions from Michelle Obama’s woke calorie counters!
Geminid
@FastEdD: I don’t know any more than anyone else about Feinstein’s plans, but I think any ambitious politician would count on her not running.
It’s true that many people think she’ll run despite her age. I think this is because people don’t like Feinstein and there is often a belief that a disliked person will continue to be be frustrating. But if this were a betting site I’d put my Jackal Bucks down on the “doesn’t run” proposition, and give odds.
And what if she defied expectations and did run? She can be beaten and I think she would be.
Porter will gain credit with many in the party for not waiting to announce. If she wants to run in the “bold progressive” lane (and I think she does) this is a good way to start.
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: What is the compelling argument?
FastEdD
If ya got it, flaunt it.
If ya don’t, flout it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Nope: No one is expecting them to save the country. That’s simply the wrong standard.
cain
@Geminid:
The woman is in her 90s and is in cognitive decline unfortunately. I know she loves this job and has been doing it for awhile – but it’s time to pass the baton for a younger generation.
Giving this up will likely lead her to decline faster, I suspect – but hopefully she will be able to redirect her energy on something else to mitigate that. Keep your brain working, yo!
Al Rennick
You’re 100% wrong. It changes everything. Biden just gave Trump a valuable Christmas present.
Baud
@cain:
Wordle!
Matt McIrvin
We seem to be getting an unusual amount of return troll and one-shot-with-unfamiliar-nym troll attention lately.
Frankensteinbeck
@Omnes Omnibus:
I think a lot of people are, or at least were, but are also the people easily discouraged. I don’t expect Smith to save the country. That is, has been, and will be in the hands of the voters, sun pony help us. I do expect Jack Smith to successfully prosecute Trump for document mishandling. That is only a sideshow to saving the country.
cain
@Baud: I was actually thinking rap artist – but sure – let’s go with that!
Geminid
@cain: I think Feinstein and the people around her know it’s time to retire. She’s most likely straining just to do the basic job now.
And I’m just speculating as to why some people say she’s going to run again. But cynicism about disliked people or groups is very strong here.
I sometimes think of what people’s attitudes would be like in an alternative universe where, after the Kavanaugh hearings concluded, instead of hugging Lindsay Graham Feinstein kicked him in the nuts!
Baud
@cain: Cali D could be her rap name.
Frankensteinbeck
@Al Rennick:
What, exactly, does it change? It doesn’t change reasonable doubt on whether Trump made an excusable mistake. The weight of evidence against Trump there is absurd, a stark contrast against Biden. What else would it affect?
Baud
@Matt McIrvin: I think they get excited when there is something “real” they can slam us with, not matter how tenuous.
Edmund Dantes
@cain: I’ve voted for whoever the democratic opposition has been to her since I moved here 8 years ago (man time flies).
She’s long past the point where she is not a net positive over any alternative replacement Dem. There is also a chance to get a + level Dem in a Porter or Schiff. A lot of Feinstein is still stuck in the 90’s Dem party mentality (and not because of any cognitive decline).
JoyceH
Open thread topic. I have an opportunity on a puppy this summer. I’m rather excited about the idea, but I’ve only ever had one dog at a time. Jazzy will be ten. How will a dog of that age accept a puppy? And with a female dog, does it matter if the puppy is male or female in terms of getting along?
Betty Cracker
@MattF: Is it not possible to assign a number to each set of documents and a code to the recipient and track it that way, without anyone necessarily seeing the contents? Or maybe hire people with top secret clearance to do that work? The current system seems unsustainable, and that’s just from what we know has been mishandled, which is probably the tip of the iceberg.
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m trying (and so far failing) to find a clip of Biden commenting on the Trump document raid that Jake Tapper played on loop last night after this news broke. In the clip, Biden is saying there’s absolutely no way Trump could have been in possession of top secret documents by accident and commenting on how dangerous Trump’s actions were from a national security standpoint, etc.
Seems like these docs popping up is evidence that yep, top secret docs go missing by accident sometimes. From my layperson’s perspective, maybe Trump could still be charged with obstruction since he failed to return documents after repeated requests, but this discovery would appear to give him some grounds to claim he didn’t know they were there.
Layer8Problem
@Matt McIrvin: Yup. Statistical aberration, or directed? I would care more, but don’t. This is what pie filters are for.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
Regardless of what Biden said, the prosecution was always going to have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. That will require evidence of what Trump knew at the time.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Geminid:
And I’m just speculating as to why some people say she’s going to run again. But cynicism about disliked people or groups is very strong.
In the reporting on the Maloney-Nadler primary last year, Maloney was reported to have said one reason she was running was that ex-MoC get lousy funerals*. I’d be willing to bet this was a joke taken out of context, but I do think the idea of a grand send-off because they died in office appeals to a lot of aging pols. Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond come to mind.
*that is a thing that was reported:
Betty Cracker
@JoyceH: I’m deep in the weeds with a DVM behaviorist because we had that exact scenario go sideways on us recently. I gather from my research and convos with the doc that a pair of males are more likely to have a problem.
Our issue didn’t crop up until the pup reached one year old, i.e., the age of social maturity for that type of dog, at which point aggression between the two got out of hand. According to our behaviorist, it’s fairly rare, and a lot of it is our fault for not properly socializing the dogs (which isn’t easy in a remote swamp during a pandemic, but I digress). Good luck!
Layer8Problem
@Baud: Brain supplements! I seen commercials!
Barbara
@Al Rennick: I never believed Trump would be indicted based on retaining classified documents, or even mishandling them, UNLESS there was proof that he actually gave (or worse, sold) them to third parties. I think Archives had one goal, and that was to get him to return the documents. He went out of his way to make it as ugly and public as he possibly could and I STILL don’t think he has put himself in legal peril over these documents. So, no, I don’t think these latest documents change anything because I never thought that Trump would face real consequences unless evidence comes to light that he gave them to KSA or Russia or whoever else.
apocalipstick
@Cacti: Or you’re wrong. That’s possible.
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: Not remotely compelling. The situations are easily distinguishable.
TEL
@Omnes Omnibus: That was hilarious! Enculeur de mouches!!
Betty Cracker
@Geminid: & @Jim, Foolish Literalist: According to someone in an earlier thread, Feinstein filed to run again. Until I read that, I had assumed she’d retire.
apocalipstick
@Spanky: How could you forget the star of Sharknado?*
*obvious sarcasm for those who can’t be bothered.
JoyceH
@Betty Cracker: To be honest, I’ve always gone with girl dogs because they seem easier and more able to adjust to things than males are.
apocalipstick
@FastEdD: Now, that’s pithy.
Baud
@Betty Cracker: I bet that was a pro forma filing by someone on her campaign staff. Her underlings are not going to ask her about her plans, so they just filed the necessary paperwork.
But I’m speculating.
Barbara
@Betty Cracker: My understanding is that many people believe classified designations are effectively too broad to manage well. There are just too many classified documents, and too many people who can make those designations. Knowingly mishandling information that you know is classified — giving it to third parties or releasing it to the public — is one thing, but keeping it in a secure business location when you have a right of access is another. Trump’s conduct was egregious because he was so sloppy and recalcitrant, but I still think that mostly they just want the information to be returned so that it could be secure.
JoyceH
@Baud: I can picture myself wanting to do things when I’m 89, 90, 91, but — hold a JOB?! Geez…
Geminid
@Betty Cracker: She did file and this was remarked upon a year ago. Evidently this is done routinely after reelection, though. I don’t think it means anything.
MisterForkbeard
@ian: It’s a good move for her – she’s going to continue having a hard time in her district, but she’s popular statewide and this puts pressure on Feinstein to finally get out of dodge.
She’d be a fantastic Senator. Between her and Warren we’d have really sharp, excellent people in the Dem caucus on finance and labor.
HumboldtBlue
@Betty Cracker:
Classified does not mean top secret. The government classifies all sorts of minor stuff.
Betty Cracker
@Omnes Omnibus: I hope you’re right.
JoyceH
@HumboldtBlue: I do think it was the classification and the subject matter of some of the material that Trump had that really set the intel community’s hair on fire.
Barbara
@JoyceH: My local shelter won’t let anyone adopt an animal unless their current pet passes a “meet and greet” test. They wouldn’t let me adopt a dog that my son had picked out because my current dog showed signs of extreme anxiety in his presence. The dog that we ended up adopting failed a meet and greet test with another person’s current cat.
So there are some things you could do here, one being to start socializing your dog to be around other dogs, if that’s possible, or perhaps even do some structured introductions before you actually adopt to get an idea of what could happen.
Betty Cracker
@HumboldtBlue: Some of the Biden docs were top secret, according to CNN, which also says Trump had 60 top secret docs. In an earlier thread where this was discussed, someone mentioned the government overclassifies things. I can believe that. Still, I don’t understand not tracking the most sensitive stuff.
HumboldtBlue
@JoyceH:
Without a doubt. I don’t think anyone’s hair is on fire over the docs Biden turned over. Well, except the GOP.
Barbara
@MisterForkbeard: Porter seems to be more appealing to a more diverse set of people than Kevin de Leon, who now seems to have imploded over the scandal involving the LA City Council.
Bill Arnold
JoyceH
@Barbara: I should probably do something like that. Jazzy and I got out more and she met other dogs more before the pandemic, but we’ve both been pretty isolated for three years. She had to overnight at a boarder last month, and the boarding lady said she pretty much ignored the other dogs, but I think she was stressed out at the circumstances. I’d gone off to an eye appointment, and the retina specialist told me to go to the ER for a stroke workup, which turned out fine, but I was kept overnight. So I left in the afternoon, and a few hours later some lady who had the key came in and took her away. Must have been pretty scary for her.
BR
@Betty Cracker:
Strangely we may be better off if DoJ indicts and then the GOP house rallies to his defense. The country has seen what kind of president he was and would be again, and I believe that a solid majority don’t want to go through it again. It’s hard for the NYT and others to cover for him this time around.
Starfish
@gene108: Part of having a security clearance is “reporting when a mistake happens.”
If you absentmindedly left the SCIF with a document, you report that.
If you happened across an unsecured classified document in the hallway or on someone’s desk, you report that.
There are enough people who have clearances who know that stuff is ordinary, and you report it, so you don’t lose your clearance.
Taking boxes of random classified documents, with or without cover sheets, and building a Jenga tower at your golf club with them is not a normal accident in the course of doing your work.
Matt McIrvin
@Omnes Omnibus: One thing I’ve learned from long experience is that when there’s a big, splashy political story whose essence is “no, YOU’RE the [X]!!!!”, it’s usually bullshit, or at least there’s much less to it than initially appears.
CaseyL
@Betty Cracker: How is your situation going? Are Badger and Pete getting along better yet?
TEL
@Betty Cracker: I just read the article you linked to, and unless I’m missing something, it only says that 10 of the documents are “classified” and not the level of classification they had. There’s a big difference between “Top Secret” (SCIF, etc) which were found at Mar a Lago and other levels of classification. I haven’t been able to find any information that the level of classification of the Biden docs has been released yet.
Omnes Omnibus
@Starfish: This is absolutely correct.
Betty Cracker
@CaseyL: They are getting along better. We’re still working on it and have a ways to go, but things are less fraught than before.
@TEL: Here’s a graphic that appears in the middle of the linked article:
WaterGirl
@frosty: But will we take you back? :-)
(of course we will)
jonas
@Amir Khalid: Apparently a number of high-level government types, including Anthony Blinken, worked at that Institute over the past couple of years. We don’t know yet who might have been the person to leave them there. We also don’t know what level they were classified at. Trump had stuff so top-secret that was never supposed to leave a secured reading room in Langley. Lastly, Biden still had his vice-presidential security clearance throughout the Trump administration. Trump had no such thing — Biden refused to grant it to him after 1/6.
bbleh
@Betty Cracker: @MattF: At least in my experience, every time a classified document was taken out of or returned to central secure storage, clearance was checked and the document was was logged out or in, including what, who and when. But after that, it’s the responsibility of the person to whom it’s entrusted, unless/until the custodian comes chasing after them. And there were various checks, eg nighttime sweeps of desks to make sure no documents were left unsecured, but in some cases people had secure storage in their offices, so a document could live with someone for a long time.
And, this is/was the White House, where there’s a LOT of classified info, including very sensitive stuff, and people who deal with a lot of different issues — classified and unclassified, official and non-official — at once and in real time, and who often are presumed to have a need-to-know just about anything. Also, there aren’t a lot of people whose job it is to go tracking everything in real time, and even if there were, it’s a lot easier for a custodian to tell some Defense office staffer to give something back than it is to tell the President or VP. That is, there’s a lot greater chance of something slipping through the cracks or going missing in that kind of environment than at most offices that work with classified info.
noncarborundum
All of this pedantry, and not a single mention of the fact that “loathe” is a verb? (The adjective is “loath”.)
Baud
@jonas:
Interesting. I didn’t know that.
Gravenstone
@Betty Cracker: The docs found in Biden’s former office actually undercut any proposed Trump defense. Biden’s lawyers immediately notified the National Archive, handed over the docs without delay, and cooperated with an investigation. All the exact opposite of Trump. That failure to comply on Trump’s part is what will sink him.
Baud
I might have to rewatch Top Secret this weekend.
pajaro
@Betty Cracker:
The evidence about Biden would be clearly inadmissible, and my guess is the government could get a protective order that would sanction the defense for mentioning it. I suppose that the news might cause someone who sneaks on to the jury intending to acquit Trump to be even more likely to ignore the evidence and jury instructions, but a juror engaging in nullification is always a risk. Call me naive, but I think that if DOJ believes it has a strong case based on the facts and law, and if they believe there is an important public interest in prosecuting a case where the criminality is as blatant as it appears to be, that they will go forward.
TEL
@Betty Cracker: Ah got it! Didn’t even look at the graphic! I found another article that said the same thing.
WaterGirl
@Matt McIrvin: Let’s just say that it’s clear that the fellow at #84 beats to the sound of a different drum.
WaterGirl
@JoyceH: I’m guessing a new pup at 10 will help keep Jazzy young. I haven’t noticed anything gender relative to dogs getting along.
WaterGirl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: @Geminid:
I call that giving someone the negative benefit of the doubt.
It’s definitely a real thing.
Frankensteinbeck
@Gravenstone:
Bingo. Trump failed to comply really hardcore, repeatedly, at great length, admitted it multiple times in public, and filed a (failed) law suit trying to not comply even more.
WaterGirl
@Barbara:
That’s a very smart idea!
H.E.Wolf
I, for one, am loth to get into this sort of discussion. :)
TriassicSands
Late to the thread.
I’d choose a different word. It sets a wonderful and necessary precedent — one that is badly needed. But it does set a troubling precedent if the opposition party insists on interpreting the indictment as a sign of partisan unfairness, which we know the GOP will do.
We’ve allowed out presidents to be unaccountable. Nixon had to resign, but with full retirement perks and he avoided the criminal prosecution and conviction that might have changed the future in a very positive way.
Democrats should have come down hard on Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, but the nature of the offense was not impeachment worthy and certainly didn’t warrant removal from office. But a unanimous Democratic vote to acquit, in the absence of a more appropriate form of response, helped perpetuate the notion that impeachment is a partisan act by one party to go after the other. Mitt Romney finally broke that mindless norm and voted to convict Trump in the first impeachment trial. That was the right thing to do. More Republicans joined him in the second trial, but it was still impossible to hold a president accountable — even an obvious criminal who had clearly committed offenses worthy of removal from office and a ban on holding office ever again.
Unless it starts somewhere, our presidents will continue to be unaccountable in any meaningful sense
Clinton; Censure and a formal recommendation that he lose his license to practice law as a result of his perjury would have helped. As a former president, Clinton was probably never going to rely on his law license again, but at least it would have demonstrated that Democrats recognized the seriousness of his behavior.
Ruckus
@Frankensteinbeck:
The things that dumb fuck doesn’t understand would take decades to cover. He’ll be dead of old age long before anyone could read the entire list. It’s his one trick. Please notice I didn’t say it was a good trick….
prostratedragon
@RobertB: Some people just can’t resist the urge to go rouge on a topic.
Miss Bianca
@gene108: Wow, you’re just a ray of fucking sunshine, aren’t you? Me, I’m going to place my bets on the DOJ. If only to avoid living with the bitter taste of New! Improved! Pre-Disappointment!
WaterGirl
@Frankensteinbeck: The DOJ still thinks Trump has more classified documents in his possession.
Even after the search warrant.
Even after T**** supposedly paid two investigators – whose names they have been keeping secret from the DOJ!, though a judge recently ruled the they have to cough up the names of the people they hired, could one be Rudy??? – they STILL think there are classified documents in Trump-land.
Paul in KY
@Betty Cracker: God, that sucks!!!!
Ruckus
@TriassicSands:
This.
The concept of ultimate power that we give a president of course sprang up long before the volume and danger of some of the things that a president has to deal with existed and we haven’t seemingly done a lot to work on that. It really should change the concept that anyone can be president, because while most anyone may be legally voted into office, it’s extremely obvious (or should be) that not everyone is even close (like close to the distance from the sun to the earth close) to having the ability to do the job.
Matt McIrvin
@WaterGirl: Was thinking about it when the thread about state birds and jay birds prompted that weird non sequitur connecting it to the supposed sins of Nancy Pelosi against Bernie, by a poster who called themself “J. Bird”. It just seemed a little too neat to be a spontaneous observation.
Betty Cracker
@Gravenstone: I hope so! The CNN coverage last night was very both-sidesy, but I give them some credit for the graphic at #129, which attempts to put the scale of the two incidents in context.
@pajaro: I’m not a lawyer, so maybe this is an ignorant question, but why would Biden’s statement be inadmissible? Seems like it would be relevant if prosecutors are making the argument that Trump must have known about the top secret docs stashed in the Third Lady’s shoe closet or wherever…
Paul in KY
@gene108: Man, you depress me. You could certainly be right, though. I do hope not.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
all counterfactuals being equally bunk, I’ve always thought that the Republicans, Newt Gingrich in particular, saved Bubba from himself by getting in the way when he was, if not destroying himself, making himself fade away.
Librarian
How does one flaunt the law? By leaving a law book out where everybody can see it? :^)
Miss Bianca
@JoyceH: My experience is that it depends on the dog, in terms of age. Some older dogs really perk up with puppy energy, some don’t and just want to be left alone.
I’ve had good success with older female dog/young female puppy, but again, I think it depends on the dog. Someone I know is adding a third or fourth female JRT to her pack, and it’s been a little problematic, I guess because the newcomer (who was brought in as a hedge against the oldest JRT’s demise) is scuffling for position with one of the others. Meanwhile, oldest is still toddling along and blithely ignoring the fuss.
tl;dr version: Uh…I guess it depends. On the dogs in question. ; )
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Librarian: you’re saying we should focus on the fact that trump is a flautist?
Baud
@TriassicSands:
IIRC, the Republicans controlled Congress at the time, and argued that the Constitution permitted only impeachment or nothing — censure was off the table.
Baud
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: James Madison’s crystal flute is ready for its encore.
Ruckus
@Betty Cracker:
I think you are correct here, even though the situations are actually quite different.
Legally the differences are stunning.
Politically, especially given the differences of the 2 sides to actually understand the duties, responsibilities, and legalities involved, they are far less different.
VOR
IIRC, one of the claimed classified documents in HRC’s email was a NYT story someone sent her which was retroactively classified. I don’t know how you classify a document created by a source outside the Government and available to any internet user.
The Lodger
@Betty Cracker: If the very existence of a given document is classified, I have no idea how to keep track of it in any kind of centralized data repository.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@TriassicSands:
In between Nixon and Clinton was Reagan, Bush I and Iran-Contra where the overwhelming evidence (IIRC and it was complicated then and it’s been a while) was that the POTUS had knowingly authorized an illegal foreign policy, the Veep knew about it, they both lied about it, and as President, Bush abused the pardon power to cover up evidence that he had committed perjury (Cap Weinberger). As ever, as now, the challenge was making people care.
Just part of how the cult of the Presidency has fucked up our politics.
Matt McIrvin
@gene108: You’re talking about the optics of this to the general public, but the Biden documents thing is the kind of story that only really matters to the general public if it pops up immediately before an election. It’s an October Surprise, but it’s not October. By November 2024 only people deep in the conservative noise machine will be talking about it, as an obscure “tu quoque” rebuttal, and nobody else will remember it.
On the chances of indicting Trump for anything, I have no idea, but I don’t think it depends on this kind of general optics calculation.
Baud
OT
tobie
@VOR: I believe the NYTimes article referred to the Secretary’s schedule, which is confidential. The retroactive classification of material in HRC’s email was clearly a political ploy done by agents in the FBI who had it out for her. They did real damage.
frosty
@WaterGirl: I was expecting Team WG to do some tough bargaining. Like, I’d already written off the signing bonus.
PJ
@FastEdD:
Dianne Feinstein has already filed to run again in 2024.
WaterGirl
@TriassicSands:
I would be happy with any number of different words than terrible. What’s terrible about it, though, is that the other part is made up of evil people who decide that since their guy was impeached, then our should be impeached, reasons for impeachment to be figured out later.
The founding fathers never imagined that there would be people in all 3 branches who truly hate America, or at least hate democracy.
Miss Bianca
@Baud: What a bunch of assholes. Pretty much goes without saying, but Jesus.
Love that one fan’s response was, “oh thank God, I thought they were going to fix the roads”. That’s some pretty epic shade.
Ruckus
@gene108:
I’m not saying a jury would make the distinction but the 2 cases are similar only in that classified documents were involved.
Biden – as president, who has the right to have them, as soon as found, in a locked room, they were returned to proper storage.
SFB – as a citizen, who is not allowed to have them, stored randomly in open places in what could be characterized as his home, un locked, fought to own and not return them, requiring a court ordered search warrant.
Legally far different cases. Politically a shit storm. Respect for the law and wanton flaunting and law breaking are not the same thing. Doesn’t change that politically they will be regarded as such. Especially as one side has zero respect for the law or anything else that doesn’t profit them.
Paul in KY
@Barbara: My shelter don’t give a crap about that. If you are wanting the animal & pay the adoption fee, then here’s your new pet.
PJ
@Betty Cracker: Because the question is whether Trump had the requisite mens rea (bad intent), not Biden. Whether or not someone else was found to have committed or not committed the same crime under different circumstances is irrelevant to whether a particular defendant did. If evidence of someone else’s possible crime were admissible, then every defendant in the country would be bringing in evidence regarding other people who were acquitted of the same charge and arguing they should be acquitted, too.
Geminid
Katie Porter’s announcement got coverage in major newspapers including the NYT and Boston Globe. Politico’s article said that Representatives Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee are planning to run, while Rep. Rho Khanna says he won’t make a decision “for a few months.”
The reporter noted that Porter starts her run “before Feinstein announces her retirement- which is expected in the next couple months.”
Feinstein’s office may have cast a little shade on Porter when they responded to queries by saying the Senator was busy monitoring the terrible flooding now threatening Californians and would make no comment at this time. I saw some other people question Ms. Porter’s timing as well.
Baud
@Geminid: Good point about the timing.
Khanna is the only of that list I would disfavor from the start.
Jinchi
@randy khan): I think you only get booted off twitter for pretending to be Elon Musk.
Ruckus
@Betty Cracker:
The different levels of documents have far different levels of handling. And sometimes the differences are, well ridiculous in my opinion.
A story. In the navy I was told that I had a top secret clearance and had zero idea why. Turned out that my department had equipment in a compartment that had top secret equipment in it. Someone had to be able to go in and fix anything that stopped working. As the senior person in the department…… It’s likely even less obvious when concerning paperwork and there are several different levels of documents/security requirements.
And no, I am not going to explain what the requirements were that made that compartment/equipment top secret, even though that equipment hasn’t been in use for decades.
sdhays
@Geminid: I’m sure Feinstein’s office is “monitoring the terrible flooding”, but previous reports cast doubt on Feinstein’s ability to reliably not get lost in her own house.
If she was truly concerned about doing what’s best for California, she would have resigned when it became clear she couldn’t do the job like she could before. And she shouldn’t have run for reelection in 2018. That was hubris.
Sloegin
Years to respond to Trump. Days to respond to Biden. Put everything else in a box and you’re left with the optics of the response time of Garland.
That being said, only the Trumpiest weirdos will remember it 3 months from now.
Ruckus
@Betty Cracker:
A second point. As I understand it there is a system. It’s complex, it’s large, it gets used by a lot of people. Any time all that happens in anything humans are involved in, there is trouble. Now add in that the president has far more power than most anyone else, that the crap human that SFB was and is, and there is going to be a
lotshit ton of trouble with any system that he is in any way, any part of.Geminid
rikyrah
@JoyceH:
Congrats on the puppy :)
Geminid
@sdhays: Obviously, your argument is with Senator Feinstein and her office, not me.
laura
I held my nose and voted for Feinstein because I am not a fan of Kevin DeLeon. I’m thrilled with Senator Alex Padilla and believe that Governor Newsom made an excellent pick in replacing Senator Kamala Harris. I wish that Feinstein would retire and allow another appointment to complete her term. But if she won’t go quietly, and a crowd competes for the spot, I’ll want to see who steps up. Ro Khanna can go fuck himself- he’s never ever ever getting my vote for any office. I prefer a workhorse to a show pony, and frankly, I was not at all amused by Congresswoman Porter’s stunt read last week. That was tone deaf and showboating and does nothing to bring me to her campaign for Senate. I do appreciate her laser focus on consumer issues and spicy grilling of the malefactors of great wealth. A lot of CA dems have long track records of dilligent public service and I’m more apt to look to them as a better choice for higher office than the Jane’s and Johnny’s who have come lately and deign themselves as entitled to the top spot.
Geminid
@Baud: I’ve also heard that Governor Newsom might run for that Senate seat. He can probably enter the race later than the others.
Betty Cracker
@PJ: I understand what you’re saying, but if it’s revealed that ex-government officials can do X by accident, wouldn’t that make it more difficult to convince a jury (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the ex-government official defendant must have done X with bad intent?
Jinchi
@Geminid: I think people assume Feinstein will run despite her age, because that’s what she did last time.
Anotherlurker
@JoyceH: I’m now living with, for the first time, the adventure that is raising a puppy. It is challenging for this 70yo., but it is so fulfilling and ever so much fun!
As far as your questions of an older dog accepting a puppy, if the introduction is handled properly, I forsee few problems.
Question: how is your older girl around puppies? If she is calm and accepting of them, I think you are off to a good start.
However, I’m only speaking from my own experience. I’d start doing some research on introducing a new dog into a new environment, with an older dog. Talk to friends who have gone thru the processYou could also consult with a local professional.
All dogs are different, but from my experience, proper introductions for the young newcomer could really help.
TriassicSands
@feebog:
So you say and rightly so. But that is not what Republicans will say, nor how millions of Americans will process this.
TriassicSands
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Reagan and GWH Bush should both have been impeached and removed from office. I skipped them, but not because I’m not aware of their constitutional “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Actually, crimes, not misdemeanors.
Ruckus
@Miss Bianca:
Sort of like being in the military. Or pretty much any group of animals.
In any unit of any size, when a new person is added or a previous person leaves, there is always some adjustment and it always depends upon the people staying and the arrival. Some fit in because they want to, some don’t. Some allow the new and are fine with it, some hate change of any kind.
TriassicSands
@Baud:
Nothing stopped the Democrats from loudly calling for a lesser, but serious response than impeachment. Your comment makes me think of the claim that the only penalty impeachment conviction can hand out is removal from office. That is absurd, and if found to be true in the courts it should be remedied immediately — not going to happen.
There are three cases of presidential misconduct that should have resulted in removal from office — Nixon, Reagan (and GHW Bush), and Trump (times two).
Other presidential impeachable offenses include LBJ’s Tonkin lies and GW Bush’s WMD lies.
TriassicSands
@Ruckus:
What you’ve written is one of the reasons why I have always opposed term limits for elected officials, especially legislators. Experience matters and poor performance should give voters every opportunity to vote incompetents out of office. But they don’t.
For representatives, two years may be long enough for voters to discern whether or not they have potential, but it is not long enough to become a knowledgeable legislator. And twelve years is when the best legislators may be revealed. That’s a stupid time to get rid of them. The problem our system has with legislators is not due to length of service, but rather the quality of the electorate and the people they elect. No amount of time is enough for a disengaged citizen to become a responsible voter.
We probably should increase the minimum age for presidents from 35 to at least 45 or 50. If they are only going to serve a maximum of eight years (ten in the case of succession), then there is no reason to elect someone so young. As a rule, we don’t, but even the early forties is pushing it. My guess is that Obama would have been a better president if he had been older when elected, but I think that is true of others elected while they were still quite young.
Baud
@TriassicSands:
I think there were Democrats that were pushing censure (Lieberman?), but the Republicans didn’t want to give Dems that out.
I don’t remember if impeach but not remove was an option discussed wrt Clinton (or any other situation).
zhena gogolia
@Geminid: I’d prefer Schiff over Porter. By a lot.
Baud
@zhena gogolia: Schiff has an edge as a friend of the blog.
zhena gogolia
@Baud: Right!
Barry
WaterGirl: “Garland is an institutionalist, and certainly indicting a former president is something he is loathe to do because it sets a terrible precedent going forward. But to not indict a former president who has broken the law, clearly and repeatedly, sets an even worse precedent.”
Frankly, ‘institutionalist’ is an overused word. I prefer ‘whited sepulcherists’. IMHO, these are people who are happy with the building being well painted, and bragging about minor achievements.
Somebody had a saying that you should never take a police army (designed to kill civilians) against a real army (designed to kill another army). The FBI/DoJ is really good at f*cking over liberals and leftists, but so far has failed miserably at dealing with a large right-wing movement which has the support of half of the US political system.
artem1s
@TriassicSands:
because it was a partisan act to find something, anything to hang Clinton with. There were 3 different special prosecutors who said so including Kenn Starr who tried to end the WHITEWATER investigation and tried to resign twice.
Jackie
@Frankensteinbeck: Not to mention repeatedly claiming he declassified them, and that they were HIS PROPERTY and did everything he could with the help of a loyalist judge to get them back.
No one is accusing Biden of obstruction.
El Muneco
@WaterGirl: It’s like “NYT Pitchbot”
frosty
@zhena gogolia: Katie Porter is dead to me. She just woke me up from a nap with an unsolicited text. Then when I was nodding off again I got another one saying I was successfully unsubscribed.
Grr!!!!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@frosty: I always say to myself: They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work. But who the hell is responding favorably to unsolicited texts? I really don’t care about emails, I get so much junk, some of it catapults the filter, but leave my fucking phone alone!
gvg
@West of the Rockies: Parody. No real active investigator would comment for our entertainment while an investigation was ongoing. We will hear NOTHING until every case is closed from these people except some official legalese like charging documents or warrents.
Jack Smith has got to be a pretty common name.
WaterGirl
@Baud: Yeah, hard NO on Khanna.
WaterGirl
@laura:
Which is well suited for a representative, but not so much for a senator.
I thought her book stunt was too cute by half, what was she thinking? In its own way it was as bad as Melania’s jacket? She should damn well care about the circus in the House, because the consequences are enormous.
She made one other really poor move judgment-wise in the past few months also. Before all that, I liked her. Now I want Katie Porter to stay in the House.
TriassicSands
@Baud:
I’m pretty sure that option — impeach, but not remove — was discussed concerning Trump’s first impeachment trial. Clearly, we need to have a more flexible system with regard to the president. Everything is not impeachable, and everything impeachable shouldn’t require removal from office. In Trump’s case, barring him from future office would have been the most effective result of trial number 2.
As for Clinton, he did lose his law licence, but I’m less concerned here with the actually penalty as opposed to the behavior of political parties concerning their own members. I firmly believe that the system is strengthened if members of both parties are willing to try to hold their own members accountable. Trump’s behavior concerning January 6 was so outrageous that it finally got through to a few Republicans, but not enough to provide actual accountability. That said, their break with the norm will be noted by historians.
Geminid
@zhena gogolia: Personally, I think Porter is overrated. And I noticed this summer that she affiliated with Brand New Congress. They’re the Justice Democrates operating under an alternate brand, so to me that makes Porter “Sus.” She may have hooked up with them having this Senate race in mind.
I like Barbara Lee and I think she’s as good as Schiff, just in a different way.
I’d like to see Khanna run because he’d lose and I want that jerk out of Congress.
But if Newsom runs I think he’ll be the likely winner. He’s already won statewide twice, three times if you count the recall election.
zhena gogolia
@frosty: I got a text from her today too!
WaterGirl
@Barry:
I see that you have no familiarity with Merrick Garland’s actual actions. Now I know that your comments on this aren’t worth reading.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@zhena gogolia: I got an email and immediately unsubscribed. Sorry, too damn early
WaterGirl
@gvg: I don’t even think Jack E. Smith is his real name. As far as I can tell, no one seems to know who he actually is.
gvg
@Betty Cracker: Boxes and Boxes of accidentally packed classified docs which he denies having repeatedly, then sues to get back…..yeah sure.
TriassicSands
@WaterGirl:
The problem you cite is obvious — Republicans believe in revenge for perceived (i.e., imaginary) transgressions.
The sad fact is that the GOP is a lost cause. I see no route from “here” to a responsible governing partner. Only through electoral annihilation is change likely, and our electorate is simply too ignorant, stupid, and/or disengaged to make that likely any time soon.
I understand your use of “terrible” and why you used it, but, damn, we have to start holding presidents accountable. I’d favor the creation of a more expansive and nuanced schedule of findings and penalties, but that isn’t likely either. When glaring problems exist, we’re all too likely to ignore them. Trump created a very real opportunity to begin fixing our mess, but once again the Republicans came up short, despite being the first ones ever to deem a president of their own party guilty. Too little, too late.
TriassicSands
Yes, except in Trump’s case where his later actions are even worse than his initial actions. If he had simply returned everything when asked to do so, I doubt we would have heard any more about those documents. But Trump is Trump. That always means lies and obstruction, and more lies.
Burnspbesq
@gene108:
And as I’m sure you know, that’s completely irrelevant.
Burnspbesq
@Cacti:
Or maybe he’s doing his job the way it’s supposed to be done, and you’re incapable or unwilling to deal.
Frank Wilhoit
2d graf: for “loathe” read “loth”. (I have not checked to see whether anyone else corrected this.)
WaterGirl
@Frank Wilhoit:
Barry
(apologies for not hyperlinking; the comments are not playing nice)
Watergirl: “I see that you have no familiarity with Merrick Garland’s actual actions. Now I know that your comments on this aren’t worth reading.”
I’m surprised by your reaction; suggesting that the FBI/DoJ lean right is not shocking, and suggesting that they (and the rest of our ‘justice’ system) tends to crush the poor and work out deals with the rich and powerful is, to my mind, not an offensive statement.
As for Garland’s actions: two years after the GOP tried to overthrow the government, his actions consist of putting some lower-level schmucks behind bars.
PJ
@Betty Cracker: Not really. If someone is on trial for, say, deliberately running someone over, the fact that other people accidentally run over people, and are not charged with attempted murder, is not relevant. Trump’s defense would always argue that taking classified documents was an accident that anyone could have done.
Which is why prosecuting Trump for simply having the documents at MAL would be extremely difficult. There has to be some other very strong evidence (e.g., Trump stating that he was taking the docs though he knew they were classified; Trump denying the docs are classified, though they clearly state that they are classified; Trump refusing to return the docs after being informed they were classified; Trump trying to sell info in the docs to a foreign power, or using info in the docs to blackmail or extort something from someone; etc.) in order to make a conviction.
WaterGirl
@Barry: You wrote this:
That doesn’t resemble Merrick Garland or his DOJ in the slightest!
Cacti
@Burnspbesq: Dithering for a year and a half and then punting to special counsel like a chickenshit?
patrick II
@WaterGirl:
I am somewhere between you and Betty on this. Legally it is nowhere near equivalent, politically it is. Hillary’s emails had an unclassified excerpt from a “Confidential” classified document and by the time FOX news got through with it, you would think she was selling atomic secrets.
General terms make for false equivalence. You can say two people both had criminal records without saying one is for mass murder and the other for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family.
Bush had not returned classified documents. Trump had not returned classified documents. That will be pounded in as equivalent over and over, and while we like to say that law is above politics it isn’t. If it actually was Hillary would have been president and there would be some Republicans in jail right now instead of outside continuing their efforts to subvert democracy both here and abroad.
I wish I could get these ideas across in a few eloquent words like Baud does. But I am what I am.
dnfree
@Baud:
To live outside the law, you must be honest. (Bob Dylan)
Barry
@dnfree: IMHO, that’s one of those cute sayings with nothing to back it up. I file it with ‘an armed society is a polite society’.
Barry
Here’s a great comment from Lawyers, Guns and Money, comparing the USA and Brazil:
“The Brazilian authorities moved so quickly to arrest those coup plotters because they are not a mature democracy like we are. They don’t understand the norms of fairly balancing the actions of the left and right so there is equilibrium, bipartisanship and constant national healing and forgetting. We should pity the Brazilians with their quaint traditions and nonstandard legal system.”