This is peripheral to the discussion (and apologies for that), but just the other day I read in a book that bears slightly on this topic the author stating that John's book "Woke Racism" was "one of the most important books written in the last ten years." He goes on to cite the book's (excellent) arguments with great approval. The author is an important figure in the current landscape. I cannot guess how John might view this development (should he be aware of it -- I suspect he not?) but I am somewhat gratified that on this topic, he has admirers in high places.
I loved ‘Woke Rascism’. I couldn’t put it down. It’s compelling way John frames woke ideology as a new religion. There are the ideological purity tests (we live in a white supremacist patriarchy, right?), the apostates and the elect (bigots and anti-racists), and narratives that require the suspension of disbelief (black men are being hunted down in the streets, no matter what the evidence suggests).
I think John should write a sequel about MAGA. There are the ideological purity tests (loyalty to Donald Trump), the apostates and the elect (RINOs and MAGA faithful), and narratives that require the suspension of disbelief (Biden stole the 2020 election, no matter what the evidence suggests).
And of course MAGA and BLM both want to tear down the systemically corrupt system. They have so much in common, maybe we’ll see a merger of these two ideologies in the not-to-distant future.
I admit I am very curious about how Glenn and John will do when it comes to calling out the excesses of the other side.
I think people who identify as anti-woke tend to fall into 2 categories: people who think wokeness of the sort John wrote about is bad, and people think that it should be deployed on behalf of the true persecuted minority - white folks.
To be fair John and Glenn are in a unique position to call out the excesses of the left. Their positions as black men at the heart of academia allow them to see the problem ‘up close’, as well as give them authority to push back on the accepted narrative.
That being said it would be hypocritical to not call out the same infractions from the right. The counterfactual narratives, the governmental overreach, the suppression of speech… MAGA is a mirror image of BLM in many ways. Unfortunately Glenn seems intent on excusing or promoting these excesses rather than calling them out. We’ll just have to wait and see if he steps up at some point.
Glenn: " I think the high road is better than the low road. When they go low, we go high... That corrupts institutions." I agree these are admirable sentiments. The questions to be debated are: 1) does ignoring crimes for the sake of the "high road" validate the lawfare strategy by signaling that it can be used with impunity -- in effect, to admit that pursue lawfare places one above the law -- and does that approach also "corrupt" (undermine) institutions? 2) Where does one draw the line with criminal behavior in pursuit of taking the "high road"? Or: is the "high road" position a suicide pact in regards to the legal system? I put "high road" in quotes because it is an open question which road is higher: ignoring real crimes (and which crimes) because of the "optics" or upholding the Rule of Law? That is not a trick question.
In essence: is it legitimate to distinguish between lawfare and legally justified prosecutions of people who also happen to be political opponents? Are we to assume that voters are incapable of making this distinction, and use that assumption to guide our actions? Clearly there are people who, because of their inveterate hatred, will either actually feel, or profess to feel, outrage at any course of action. To what extent should these people be compromised with or catered to? Which does more damage to our system of government: assuming the electorate (as a whole) can make such distinctions in good faith or they are incapable of doing so (and thus lack meaningful agency)?
I will close by saying I find Glenn's nuclear war argument a weak analogy: debating the application of the Rule of Law is not the same as escalation in warfare (Cara's evocation is MAD is likewise inappropriate in this case.) Glenn seems to be assuming bad faith on the part of both parties and this has yet to be demonstrated, as the incoming Trump administration has yet to prosecute anyone. In terms of "escalation," I think it would be wiser to wait until prosecutions are actually brought before debating such points.
For my own part, I do not agree that Trump's enemies should be punished in the courts to deter them from pursuing lawfare; I believe they should be held to the same standard before the Law as everyone else. Their actions have been deplorable and this can be adjudicated by election where they does not cross a legal threshold. Even so, clemency is a virtue, but it is worth noting that Caesar's assassins included those (especially Brutus) who were the beneficiaries of his clemency.
Regarding taking the high road in war (since Glenn brought it up), the example of the Marquis de Montcalm might be instructive. Faced with a crucial choice in the conduct of the war, he stuck to what he believed to be his moral obligations as a professional soldier, although in doing so, he risked defeat in the war and his own death. For those who might be unaware, he did lose the war as a result of his stance and was killed. Whether Montcalm was hero or a fool has been debated ever since. I know where I stand on this question. My point is that when considering these questions, whatever we decide there will be consequences. In evaluating those consequences, we are best served by being clear-eyed and dispassionate. Are we there yet? It's early days and I have my doubts. Will we ever get there? Time will tell.
I just listened to Glenn and John from June 2017. John called Trump's cabinet a "cesspool," haha, but he seemed in good spirits. He was already very negative on Trump, so I'm not going to buy the idea that J6 changed everything. But, again, he was very cheerful about it all. Does anyone know if older episodes are available? I found this under The Glenn Show archives on Nonzero on YouTube. (My immediate goal is to find out if John and Glenn talked about the Duke lacrosse incident as it unfolded.)
On a different note, does anyone remember an incident, years and years ago, involving a Black girl outside a swimming pool? As best I remember, it was not a tragedy or anything, but was just one of those events that blows up in the media. The reason I ask is I think that was the first John and Glenn episode I listened to as soon as it was released. I had discovered them shortly before and was curious how long I've been a listener.
I'm not sure if they talked about the Duke lacrosse case - that was a long time ago. My instinct is no, but I hadn't yet discovered Glenn back then. If they did talk about it, the conversation might not even be on YT. You would have to look through the old Bloggingheads archive, which is hard to search.
My findings... Looks like Glenn started at Bloggingheads the year after the Duke lacrosse matter was in the news. You're right in saying Bloggingheads archive is hard to search. I was ready to give up. On a whim I typed "swimming pool" (without referencing Loury or anything) and lo and behold, it returned two items, both Glenn/John convos. From the dates, it looks like I discovered Glenn and John roughly 6-1/2 years ago.
Mr. Trump was railroaded. The Democrats and their cohorts are guilty (of the Russia Hoax, the gaslighting of the 2020 election, etc.).
That said, I think Mr. Trump should pardon them for the following three reasons:
There's no appeal from a pardon; one either takes it or leaves it, and he can hang the crimes on them forever that way.
The only chance for Mr. Trump to convict Democrats is to get the cases out of DC, which will be difficult.
It will be better to put the Democrat crimes behind us and focus on improving the future.
Justice would be prison for the Democrats who wronged Mr. Trump (and the rest of us by doing so), but mercy will redound to his credit, and if he exercises mercy instead of justice he'll rank with Lincoln among great presidents.
Lincoln!?! Wow, we live in completely different worlds. I see Trump as more of an “anti-Washington”. The later instituted a tradition of peaceful transference of power. The former… well…
Out of curiosity, what crimes are you referring to? For example: Trump recently said Liz Cheney should be in jail for her role in the Jan 6 committee. What was the crime there?
Trump was president for four years. He had four years to sic the DOJ on Hilary and Obama. He did none of that. On the other hand, what Hilary, Pelosi, Wray, Garland and the Bidens have done to Trump and his supporters is absolutely criminal. If the Trump administration goes after those criminals and prosecutes them for their actual crimes. it will not be turnabout. It will be justice. It will be a warning to anyone in the future to save their banana republic politics for other countries, not here.
Biden and pence being cleared for having state secrets while Trump was raided was not a good look. Ny state changing the law so that kook jean Carrol could sue was an especially nice touch .
I feel like we’re talking about this in several different places, but I guess I’ll respond to this comment also.
Are you suggesting that Trump eventually cooperated? After 9 months of impeding NARA and another 6 months impeding the FBI? After lying and hiding evidence?
I suppose you’d make the same argument for the ‘peaceful transfer of power’. After lying about ballot fraud, ginning up his own fraudulent electors, pressuring Pence to overturn the election, and sicking a mob on the Capitol; you’d argue that Trump’s term ended in a peaceful transfer of power?
Maybe you’d also argue that WW1 ‘ended peacefully’…
It seems people overlook the fact that documents may be declassified at the sole discretion of POTUS. The VP has no such authority. So strictly speaking, a sitting president cannot "mishandle" classified material.
Ex-presidents don’t have that authority either Owen. Even with presidents there’s a process that needs to be followed to declassify materials. There’s no evidence indicating that Trump even attempted to declassify these documents prior to leaving office.
Yeah, what the hell is the purpose of a statute of limitations if you can revoke it if you want? Dumbest thing I ever heard of. Wait, not dumbest... most corrupt.
It’s not a crime if you cooperate ? If anything Biden was truly egregious as it included secrets from before he was president and shared them with his ghost writer .
It’s kinda like paying the wrong amount in taxes. If you correct the mistakes once it’s pointed out then there won’t be any issues. If you lie and obstruct efforts to recover those taxes then you’re going to get in trouble.
The mishandling of classified documents is a systemic issue that has affected multiple administrations. Poor procedures and unclear standards make this process haphazard and error prone. But when Clinton, Bush, or Obama are confronted on classified documents they COOPERATE with authorities. Trump lied and obstructed the efforts to retrieve the documents. There’s no equivalency with previous administrations.
Yeah, Biden shared personal notes from his time as VP. He thought these were his to keep but the FBI later determined (after being invited into his house without even requesting a warrant) that they referenced classified meetings which Biden had attended. Hur concluded that Biden did indeed share classified information but that there was no evidence that he intended to do so.
Meanwhile Trump is caught on tape sharing classified information and then in the next sentence ADMITTING that it was classified. But this isn’t even the worst part. It was his continual refusal to cooperate with the FBI in retrieving the documents. What was the FBI supposed to do? Just say, “Well Mr. President I guess you’re above the law. Go ahead and keep those documents.”?
I think there was a proof problem with the Biden and Trump incidents.
With Biden, the Hur investigation failed to establish exactly what if anything Biden showed his ghost writer. It could have been his notes. It could have been the specific documents later found in Biden's garage (after he had moved). It could ahve been something else. No chain of custody, etc.
With Trump, they had audio of him waving a document around, claiming it was classified, discussing its contents with uncleared people. But what document?
To prove either case, they would need to prove in court a specific document was shown. I think that because they could not, neither incident was charged. Trump or Biden could have been rustling a copy the Wall Street Journal and claiming it was a classified doc describing something else.
They both took national security secrets. One did so intentionally (as the audio tape clearly shows). The other did so unintentionally (as laid out in Hur report).
And yes, when the FBI makes multiple, clear requests for you to return classified documents and you lie, tell aids to hide evidence, and otherwise obstruct the FBI’s efforts… yes, you’ve committed a crime. Framing this like it was just a minor disagreement with some random civil servant is incredibly dishonest.
I agree with you on the NY state case. Trump is guilty, but this is the sort of case that wouldn’t have been brought forward had the name ‘Trump’ not been involved. The same is true for the Hunter Biden case. I could be persuaded that these cases amount to ‘lawfare’.
But the ‘Classified Documents’ case is absolutely justified. It’s not the possession of classified documents that led to this case but Trump’s refusal to cooperate with authorities and his obstruction of their efforts to retrieve them. It’s these actions that set Trump apart from Biden or Pence.
I am no doubt being picky, but has Donald Trump formally been "convicted"? A jury renders a verdict, which in the case was guilty on 34 counts. The judicial process does not allow a jury to convict a defendant, only a judge is allowed to do that. Has Judge Merchan passed judgment on Donald Trump?
We have a verdict and motions have been filed. Have we reached judgment which the ABA defines as follows.
Judgment: The decision of the jury doesn't take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision - that is, an order that it be filed in public records. [In criminal cases, the judge generally has no authority to modify the verdict. In most jurisdictions, he or she must accept it or reject it (e.g., by granting a motion in arrest of judgment).]
Being "picky" as you say is crucial -- details matter. They especially matter in this case because, as you show, the appeals process cannot start until the judge enters a judgment and sentencing occurs. No one has any doubt that the jury's verdict in Trump's case will be thrown out on appeal, should sentencing occur. Failing to either sentence Trump or dismiss the case is a political maneuver -- a continuation of the lawfare. It's important (not picky) to continue making this point.
Yes! The many egregious acts conducted by the deep state and Democrats over the last eight years need to be investigated. Many have compared this process to a truth and reconciliation tribunal. If the perpetrators are forthcoming, then mercy should be granted. If not, then show them no quarter.
I think everyone from conservatives to traditional liberals have a serious beef over how much of the last four years played out.
-The phony Russiagate story started by the Clinton campaign and continued by the FBI, Dems, and Press.
-The first impeachment. I invite anyone to read the transcript of the phone call and find anything worthy of Trump's impeachment.
-The response to Covid
-The refusal to investigate the origins of Covid. We may very well have funded the research that led to it.
-Direct and indirect censorship
-The burying of the Hunter Biden laptop and the 51 IC "experts" who helped make sure it happened.
- The harassment of various government whistleblowers
-The suggestion that traditional Catholics are domestic threats.
-Putting Tulsi Gabbard on a terrorist watch list
-The preferential treatment given to repeat illegal alien criminal suspects
-The nonstop gaslighting
-And, and, and...
The rot runs deep. Efforts to investigate and eliminate the corruption will be called vengeance, but, as you say, it will be justice.
Sure. Trump did a lot wrong, but the resulting overreaction was like an autoimmune disease response that destroys the body it is supposed to protect.
A lot of powerful people believed that Trump's greatest mistake was getting elected by the American people in 2016. These election rejectionists-many of them nominally working for Trump-decided that they had to rectify this "error" by sabotaging Trump's Presidency.
I'm a humanist-I will choose the flawed man over the corrupt system every time.
Trump's low point was after losing the 2020 election. Normally that would be a big deal for a law and order guy like me, but I simply didn't care at that point.
I had spent hours following Russiagate, looking for evidence that Trump was compromised by Putin. It was all bullshit.
I've always viewed impeachment as the nuclear option and when I saw that the Second Article of the first impeachment was a glorified separation of powers fight, I knew it was bullshit.
I read the infamous letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinfo op and wondered if anyone else actually had because it was a poorly written piece of blatantly propagandistic bullshit.
Then Biden was elected and the rate of effluent increased dramatically. There's no surge in illegal immigration; the bugout from Afghanistan went smoothly. The Russians blew up Nordstream. Anything Covid related. Biden's at the top of his game, until he wasn't. He's incapable of running a campaign but he can govern the country. And on and on and on.
This stream of bullshit has been unending for eight years, and I honestly don't think we're aware of its real magnitude.
So when I see one red cowpie next to a steaming, fetid pile of blue liquid excrement, I'm going to ignore the former to focus on the latter.
Thank you Marty. It is SO refreshing to hear an honest take on Trump. No election denial or lies about “alternate electors”. No ‘fedsurrection’ conspiracies or absurd assertions that Pence had the right to overturn the election. Just a genuine ‘lesser of two evils’ argument where the evils of BOTH sides are acknowledged. Thank you.
I disagree with your conclusion of course. Don’t get me wrong: I HATE the far left. They’ve destroyed ours cities by turning a blind eye to crime and allowing drugs to flood our streets. They’ve pushed their corruptive ideologies into our universities and HR departments. The “mostly peaceful protest” and Covid lockdowns… I despise it all.
But what Trump did after the 2020 election was unforgivable. It’s far from the only thing I hate about Trump, but it’s the one thing that’s utterly disqualifying. To spread brazen lies about widespread ballot fraud only to turn around and organize his own fraudulent electors; to pressure his own VP to BREAK the law and OVERTURN the election: it’s despicable. This should never be allowed; not in America.
And it’s sad to see what Trump has done to the Republican Party. We used to revere the Constitution, but he brought us to the brink of a Constitutional crisis and nobody cares. We used to be the party of law and order, but we ceded that high ground ever since Jan 6. We used to be the “facts don’t care about your feelings” party, but now we’re completely fueled by conspiracies and lies. Even the more mundane tenants of Conservatism like ‘fiscal responsibility’ or ‘moral character’ are just quaint relics of a bygone era.
Anyways, I appreciate your honest assessment of the landscape. As Bolton said “go ahead and vote for Trump if you want, but for goodness sakes do it with your eyes open”. It’s rare to find someone who actually voted with their eyes open.
Dems are "all in" on Trump as evil. They cannot see their actions as bad political strategy, but only as temporarily unsuccessful battlefield maneuvers. My money is on them returning to such behavior, with more sophistication, against whoever follows Trump and against everyone who supports Trump. Concluding "we made a bad decision" requires a self-awareness few Democrats have.
Should Trump have NOT been prosecuted for what he did in 2020? Should we allow candidates to orchestrate fraudulent electors and then use these as a pretense to BREAK the ECA and OVERTURN the election??
Great!! This would allow Kamala to become president this coming January. Glad to see you’re onboard with this.
The big reason this failed is because only the hard left believed in these charges. Everyone else thought it was a bunch of crap and they were just doing it to try to keep him from winning the election
Absolutely not. I’m a conservative who thinks Trump should be in jail for the rest of his life.
You clearly haven’t looked into the ‘Election Interference’ cases. After making unsubstantiated claims of ballot fraud Trump turned around and organize 84 fraudulent electors across 7 swing states, the goal of which was to intentionally misrepresent the underlying votes. He then pressured Pence to use these as pretense to BREAK the Electoral Count Act (ECA) and OVERTURN the election.
You would be furious if Kamala tried to pull off this same stunt come January. Every American should be furious, regardless of who perpetrated these acts.
Luke: I will state for the record that your claims stated above are without merit. You are at liberty to "think" whatever you like and choose to believe whatever serves your need to believe it. But that has no bearing on truth of the case.
It is not my job to "show" you anything or "inform you" of anything. That is your responsibility. You, for reasons known only to yourself, made allegations that show clear evidence of personal enmity and emotional reasoning. Rather than let your allegations pass without comment, I chose (for reasons of my own) to dispute them.
Having do so, I will not bother to litigate the issue in Glenn's comment section because (as the saying goes) a man cannot be be reasoned out of what he was not been reasoned in to. (Another parable about singing livestock comes to mind, but I'll let that go.) Happy Holidays.
This is why I'm letting my subscription lapse. This is what polarization has wrought: highly intelligent professors who either celebrate October 7 or tout this idiotic lawfare narrative. It has become insufferable. Thanks for your clarity of thought!
What Glenn said. Mic drop.
This is peripheral to the discussion (and apologies for that), but just the other day I read in a book that bears slightly on this topic the author stating that John's book "Woke Racism" was "one of the most important books written in the last ten years." He goes on to cite the book's (excellent) arguments with great approval. The author is an important figure in the current landscape. I cannot guess how John might view this development (should he be aware of it -- I suspect he not?) but I am somewhat gratified that on this topic, he has admirers in high places.
Which book/author?
‘Woke Racism’ by John McWhorter. Audiobook is read by him too.
I loved ‘Woke Rascism’. I couldn’t put it down. It’s compelling way John frames woke ideology as a new religion. There are the ideological purity tests (we live in a white supremacist patriarchy, right?), the apostates and the elect (bigots and anti-racists), and narratives that require the suspension of disbelief (black men are being hunted down in the streets, no matter what the evidence suggests).
I think John should write a sequel about MAGA. There are the ideological purity tests (loyalty to Donald Trump), the apostates and the elect (RINOs and MAGA faithful), and narratives that require the suspension of disbelief (Biden stole the 2020 election, no matter what the evidence suggests).
And of course MAGA and BLM both want to tear down the systemically corrupt system. They have so much in common, maybe we’ll see a merger of these two ideologies in the not-to-distant future.
I admit I am very curious about how Glenn and John will do when it comes to calling out the excesses of the other side.
I think people who identify as anti-woke tend to fall into 2 categories: people who think wokeness of the sort John wrote about is bad, and people think that it should be deployed on behalf of the true persecuted minority - white folks.
To be fair John and Glenn are in a unique position to call out the excesses of the left. Their positions as black men at the heart of academia allow them to see the problem ‘up close’, as well as give them authority to push back on the accepted narrative.
That being said it would be hypocritical to not call out the same infractions from the right. The counterfactual narratives, the governmental overreach, the suppression of speech… MAGA is a mirror image of BLM in many ways. Unfortunately Glenn seems intent on excusing or promoting these excesses rather than calling them out. We’ll just have to wait and see if he steps up at some point.
Glenn: " I think the high road is better than the low road. When they go low, we go high... That corrupts institutions." I agree these are admirable sentiments. The questions to be debated are: 1) does ignoring crimes for the sake of the "high road" validate the lawfare strategy by signaling that it can be used with impunity -- in effect, to admit that pursue lawfare places one above the law -- and does that approach also "corrupt" (undermine) institutions? 2) Where does one draw the line with criminal behavior in pursuit of taking the "high road"? Or: is the "high road" position a suicide pact in regards to the legal system? I put "high road" in quotes because it is an open question which road is higher: ignoring real crimes (and which crimes) because of the "optics" or upholding the Rule of Law? That is not a trick question.
In essence: is it legitimate to distinguish between lawfare and legally justified prosecutions of people who also happen to be political opponents? Are we to assume that voters are incapable of making this distinction, and use that assumption to guide our actions? Clearly there are people who, because of their inveterate hatred, will either actually feel, or profess to feel, outrage at any course of action. To what extent should these people be compromised with or catered to? Which does more damage to our system of government: assuming the electorate (as a whole) can make such distinctions in good faith or they are incapable of doing so (and thus lack meaningful agency)?
I will close by saying I find Glenn's nuclear war argument a weak analogy: debating the application of the Rule of Law is not the same as escalation in warfare (Cara's evocation is MAD is likewise inappropriate in this case.) Glenn seems to be assuming bad faith on the part of both parties and this has yet to be demonstrated, as the incoming Trump administration has yet to prosecute anyone. In terms of "escalation," I think it would be wiser to wait until prosecutions are actually brought before debating such points.
For my own part, I do not agree that Trump's enemies should be punished in the courts to deter them from pursuing lawfare; I believe they should be held to the same standard before the Law as everyone else. Their actions have been deplorable and this can be adjudicated by election where they does not cross a legal threshold. Even so, clemency is a virtue, but it is worth noting that Caesar's assassins included those (especially Brutus) who were the beneficiaries of his clemency.
Regarding taking the high road in war (since Glenn brought it up), the example of the Marquis de Montcalm might be instructive. Faced with a crucial choice in the conduct of the war, he stuck to what he believed to be his moral obligations as a professional soldier, although in doing so, he risked defeat in the war and his own death. For those who might be unaware, he did lose the war as a result of his stance and was killed. Whether Montcalm was hero or a fool has been debated ever since. I know where I stand on this question. My point is that when considering these questions, whatever we decide there will be consequences. In evaluating those consequences, we are best served by being clear-eyed and dispassionate. Are we there yet? It's early days and I have my doubts. Will we ever get there? Time will tell.
I just listened to Glenn and John from June 2017. John called Trump's cabinet a "cesspool," haha, but he seemed in good spirits. He was already very negative on Trump, so I'm not going to buy the idea that J6 changed everything. But, again, he was very cheerful about it all. Does anyone know if older episodes are available? I found this under The Glenn Show archives on Nonzero on YouTube. (My immediate goal is to find out if John and Glenn talked about the Duke lacrosse incident as it unfolded.)
On a different note, does anyone remember an incident, years and years ago, involving a Black girl outside a swimming pool? As best I remember, it was not a tragedy or anything, but was just one of those events that blows up in the media. The reason I ask is I think that was the first John and Glenn episode I listened to as soon as it was released. I had discovered them shortly before and was curious how long I've been a listener.
Here's the link to The Glenn Show's YouTube page - it has everything after the switch from Nonzero.
https://youtube.com/@glennlouryshow?si=PXjY-GItBAwFk83d
I'm not sure if they talked about the Duke lacrosse case - that was a long time ago. My instinct is no, but I hadn't yet discovered Glenn back then. If they did talk about it, the conversation might not even be on YT. You would have to look through the old Bloggingheads archive, which is hard to search.
Bloggingheads.tv
I'd be interested to know, though.
My findings... Looks like Glenn started at Bloggingheads the year after the Duke lacrosse matter was in the news. You're right in saying Bloggingheads archive is hard to search. I was ready to give up. On a whim I typed "swimming pool" (without referencing Loury or anything) and lo and behold, it returned two items, both Glenn/John convos. From the dates, it looks like I discovered Glenn and John roughly 6-1/2 years ago.
Thanks again for the info.
Thanks! Much appreciated. If I have any luck, I'll post something here.
When an "intelligent" man actually says that lawfare in the US is "patriotic', I've lost all hope in his ability to reason.
How would you like to be the FBI agent who went through her underwear, looking for documents?
Newest field agent on the island of Attu?
I wonder if Seth Rich had previously gone through Kathleen Willey’s underwear drawer. Asking for a friend.
The Leftwaffe had to make up stuff, MAGA will not.
The Democrats are going to be toast. And they deserve every bit of it.
Paybacks are a bitch.
I concur in result.
There's a big difference.
Mr. Trump was railroaded. The Democrats and their cohorts are guilty (of the Russia Hoax, the gaslighting of the 2020 election, etc.).
That said, I think Mr. Trump should pardon them for the following three reasons:
There's no appeal from a pardon; one either takes it or leaves it, and he can hang the crimes on them forever that way.
The only chance for Mr. Trump to convict Democrats is to get the cases out of DC, which will be difficult.
It will be better to put the Democrat crimes behind us and focus on improving the future.
Justice would be prison for the Democrats who wronged Mr. Trump (and the rest of us by doing so), but mercy will redound to his credit, and if he exercises mercy instead of justice he'll rank with Lincoln among great presidents.
Lincoln!?! Wow, we live in completely different worlds. I see Trump as more of an “anti-Washington”. The later instituted a tradition of peaceful transference of power. The former… well…
Out of curiosity, what crimes are you referring to? For example: Trump recently said Liz Cheney should be in jail for her role in the Jan 6 committee. What was the crime there?
Trump was president for four years. He had four years to sic the DOJ on Hilary and Obama. He did none of that. On the other hand, what Hilary, Pelosi, Wray, Garland and the Bidens have done to Trump and his supporters is absolutely criminal. If the Trump administration goes after those criminals and prosecutes them for their actual crimes. it will not be turnabout. It will be justice. It will be a warning to anyone in the future to save their banana republic politics for other countries, not here.
Biden and pence being cleared for having state secrets while Trump was raided was not a good look. Ny state changing the law so that kook jean Carrol could sue was an especially nice touch .
If a president decides to cooperates after the fact why should he be charged ?
I feel like we’re talking about this in several different places, but I guess I’ll respond to this comment also.
Are you suggesting that Trump eventually cooperated? After 9 months of impeding NARA and another 6 months impeding the FBI? After lying and hiding evidence?
I suppose you’d make the same argument for the ‘peaceful transfer of power’. After lying about ballot fraud, ginning up his own fraudulent electors, pressuring Pence to overturn the election, and sicking a mob on the Capitol; you’d argue that Trump’s term ended in a peaceful transfer of power?
Maybe you’d also argue that WW1 ‘ended peacefully’…
It seems people overlook the fact that documents may be declassified at the sole discretion of POTUS. The VP has no such authority. So strictly speaking, a sitting president cannot "mishandle" classified material.
The mishandling Trump was charged with occurred after he left the Oval Office and was no longer President.
The mishandling Biden was investigated for occurred following his Vice Presidency and prior to his becoming President.
Ex-presidents don’t have that authority either Owen. Even with presidents there’s a process that needs to be followed to declassify materials. There’s no evidence indicating that Trump even attempted to declassify these documents prior to leaving office.
Yeah, what the hell is the purpose of a statute of limitations if you can revoke it if you want? Dumbest thing I ever heard of. Wait, not dumbest... most corrupt.
Brought to you by the billionaire owner of LinkedIn who also paid for Carrol’s attorneys, but heck it’s just a coincidence!
It’s not a crime if you cooperate ? If anything Biden was truly egregious as it included secrets from before he was president and shared them with his ghost writer .
It’s kinda like paying the wrong amount in taxes. If you correct the mistakes once it’s pointed out then there won’t be any issues. If you lie and obstruct efforts to recover those taxes then you’re going to get in trouble.
The mishandling of classified documents is a systemic issue that has affected multiple administrations. Poor procedures and unclear standards make this process haphazard and error prone. But when Clinton, Bush, or Obama are confronted on classified documents they COOPERATE with authorities. Trump lied and obstructed the efforts to retrieve the documents. There’s no equivalency with previous administrations.
And Biden showing them to his ghost writer ?
Yeah, Biden shared personal notes from his time as VP. He thought these were his to keep but the FBI later determined (after being invited into his house without even requesting a warrant) that they referenced classified meetings which Biden had attended. Hur concluded that Biden did indeed share classified information but that there was no evidence that he intended to do so.
Meanwhile Trump is caught on tape sharing classified information and then in the next sentence ADMITTING that it was classified. But this isn’t even the worst part. It was his continual refusal to cooperate with the FBI in retrieving the documents. What was the FBI supposed to do? Just say, “Well Mr. President I guess you’re above the law. Go ahead and keep those documents.”?
I think there was a proof problem with the Biden and Trump incidents.
With Biden, the Hur investigation failed to establish exactly what if anything Biden showed his ghost writer. It could have been his notes. It could have been the specific documents later found in Biden's garage (after he had moved). It could ahve been something else. No chain of custody, etc.
With Trump, they had audio of him waving a document around, claiming it was classified, discussing its contents with uncleared people. But what document?
To prove either case, they would need to prove in court a specific document was shown. I think that because they could not, neither incident was charged. Trump or Biden could have been rustling a copy the Wall Street Journal and claiming it was a classified doc describing something else.
So taking and keeping national security secrets is okay but if a president disagrees with a civil servant who declares you can’t ?
They both took national security secrets. One did so intentionally (as the audio tape clearly shows). The other did so unintentionally (as laid out in Hur report).
And yes, when the FBI makes multiple, clear requests for you to return classified documents and you lie, tell aids to hide evidence, and otherwise obstruct the FBI’s efforts… yes, you’ve committed a crime. Framing this like it was just a minor disagreement with some random civil servant is incredibly dishonest.
I agree with you on the NY state case. Trump is guilty, but this is the sort of case that wouldn’t have been brought forward had the name ‘Trump’ not been involved. The same is true for the Hunter Biden case. I could be persuaded that these cases amount to ‘lawfare’.
But the ‘Classified Documents’ case is absolutely justified. It’s not the possession of classified documents that led to this case but Trump’s refusal to cooperate with authorities and his obstruction of their efforts to retrieve them. It’s these actions that set Trump apart from Biden or Pence.
I am no doubt being picky, but has Donald Trump formally been "convicted"? A jury renders a verdict, which in the case was guilty on 34 counts. The judicial process does not allow a jury to convict a defendant, only a judge is allowed to do that. Has Judge Merchan passed judgment on Donald Trump?
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/judgment/
The last 5 steps in a trial are:
>>Verdict
>>Motions after Verdict
>>Judgment
>>Sentencing
>>Appeals
We have a verdict and motions have been filed. Have we reached judgment which the ABA defines as follows.
Judgment: The decision of the jury doesn't take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision - that is, an order that it be filed in public records. [In criminal cases, the judge generally has no authority to modify the verdict. In most jurisdictions, he or she must accept it or reject it (e.g., by granting a motion in arrest of judgment).]
I think that, in a formal sense, Trump is not convicted until he is sentenced.
Being "picky" as you say is crucial -- details matter. They especially matter in this case because, as you show, the appeals process cannot start until the judge enters a judgment and sentencing occurs. No one has any doubt that the jury's verdict in Trump's case will be thrown out on appeal, should sentencing occur. Failing to either sentence Trump or dismiss the case is a political maneuver -- a continuation of the lawfare. It's important (not picky) to continue making this point.
It's not about vengeance, it's about justice.
Yes! The many egregious acts conducted by the deep state and Democrats over the last eight years need to be investigated. Many have compared this process to a truth and reconciliation tribunal. If the perpetrators are forthcoming, then mercy should be granted. If not, then show them no quarter.
I think everyone from conservatives to traditional liberals have a serious beef over how much of the last four years played out.
-The phony Russiagate story started by the Clinton campaign and continued by the FBI, Dems, and Press.
-The first impeachment. I invite anyone to read the transcript of the phone call and find anything worthy of Trump's impeachment.
-The response to Covid
-The refusal to investigate the origins of Covid. We may very well have funded the research that led to it.
-Direct and indirect censorship
-The burying of the Hunter Biden laptop and the 51 IC "experts" who helped make sure it happened.
- The harassment of various government whistleblowers
-The suggestion that traditional Catholics are domestic threats.
-Putting Tulsi Gabbard on a terrorist watch list
-The preferential treatment given to repeat illegal alien criminal suspects
-The nonstop gaslighting
-And, and, and...
The rot runs deep. Efforts to investigate and eliminate the corruption will be called vengeance, but, as you say, it will be justice.
Quick question: Can you think of anything Trump did wrong in the last 8 years?
Sure. Trump did a lot wrong, but the resulting overreaction was like an autoimmune disease response that destroys the body it is supposed to protect.
A lot of powerful people believed that Trump's greatest mistake was getting elected by the American people in 2016. These election rejectionists-many of them nominally working for Trump-decided that they had to rectify this "error" by sabotaging Trump's Presidency.
I'm a humanist-I will choose the flawed man over the corrupt system every time.
In your mind what’s the worst thing Trump did? From my perspective it’s trying to overturn the 2020 election, but I’m curious what your thoughts are.
Trump's low point was after losing the 2020 election. Normally that would be a big deal for a law and order guy like me, but I simply didn't care at that point.
I had spent hours following Russiagate, looking for evidence that Trump was compromised by Putin. It was all bullshit.
I've always viewed impeachment as the nuclear option and when I saw that the Second Article of the first impeachment was a glorified separation of powers fight, I knew it was bullshit.
I read the infamous letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinfo op and wondered if anyone else actually had because it was a poorly written piece of blatantly propagandistic bullshit.
Then Biden was elected and the rate of effluent increased dramatically. There's no surge in illegal immigration; the bugout from Afghanistan went smoothly. The Russians blew up Nordstream. Anything Covid related. Biden's at the top of his game, until he wasn't. He's incapable of running a campaign but he can govern the country. And on and on and on.
This stream of bullshit has been unending for eight years, and I honestly don't think we're aware of its real magnitude.
So when I see one red cowpie next to a steaming, fetid pile of blue liquid excrement, I'm going to ignore the former to focus on the latter.
Thank you Marty. It is SO refreshing to hear an honest take on Trump. No election denial or lies about “alternate electors”. No ‘fedsurrection’ conspiracies or absurd assertions that Pence had the right to overturn the election. Just a genuine ‘lesser of two evils’ argument where the evils of BOTH sides are acknowledged. Thank you.
I disagree with your conclusion of course. Don’t get me wrong: I HATE the far left. They’ve destroyed ours cities by turning a blind eye to crime and allowing drugs to flood our streets. They’ve pushed their corruptive ideologies into our universities and HR departments. The “mostly peaceful protest” and Covid lockdowns… I despise it all.
But what Trump did after the 2020 election was unforgivable. It’s far from the only thing I hate about Trump, but it’s the one thing that’s utterly disqualifying. To spread brazen lies about widespread ballot fraud only to turn around and organize his own fraudulent electors; to pressure his own VP to BREAK the law and OVERTURN the election: it’s despicable. This should never be allowed; not in America.
And it’s sad to see what Trump has done to the Republican Party. We used to revere the Constitution, but he brought us to the brink of a Constitutional crisis and nobody cares. We used to be the party of law and order, but we ceded that high ground ever since Jan 6. We used to be the “facts don’t care about your feelings” party, but now we’re completely fueled by conspiracies and lies. Even the more mundane tenants of Conservatism like ‘fiscal responsibility’ or ‘moral character’ are just quaint relics of a bygone era.
Anyways, I appreciate your honest assessment of the landscape. As Bolton said “go ahead and vote for Trump if you want, but for goodness sakes do it with your eyes open”. It’s rare to find someone who actually voted with their eyes open.
Dems are "all in" on Trump as evil. They cannot see their actions as bad political strategy, but only as temporarily unsuccessful battlefield maneuvers. My money is on them returning to such behavior, with more sophistication, against whoever follows Trump and against everyone who supports Trump. Concluding "we made a bad decision" requires a self-awareness few Democrats have.
Should Trump have NOT been prosecuted for what he did in 2020? Should we allow candidates to orchestrate fraudulent electors and then use these as a pretense to BREAK the ECA and OVERTURN the election??
Great!! This would allow Kamala to become president this coming January. Glad to see you’re onboard with this.
Like I said...lacking self awareness...
lol. That’s a really cute way of avoiding the question. Would you be fine with Kamala pulling the exact same stunt this coming January?
The big reason this failed is because only the hard left believed in these charges. Everyone else thought it was a bunch of crap and they were just doing it to try to keep him from winning the election
Absolutely not. I’m a conservative who thinks Trump should be in jail for the rest of his life.
You clearly haven’t looked into the ‘Election Interference’ cases. After making unsubstantiated claims of ballot fraud Trump turned around and organize 84 fraudulent electors across 7 swing states, the goal of which was to intentionally misrepresent the underlying votes. He then pressured Pence to use these as pretense to BREAK the Electoral Count Act (ECA) and OVERTURN the election.
You would be furious if Kamala tried to pull off this same stunt come January. Every American should be furious, regardless of who perpetrated these acts.
Luke: I will state for the record that your claims stated above are without merit. You are at liberty to "think" whatever you like and choose to believe whatever serves your need to believe it. But that has no bearing on truth of the case.
Alright, show me what I’m wrong about. Inform me.
- Were any of the 84 electors certified by state legislatures?
- What was Eastman’s argument for Pence breaking the ECA?
- How did Eastman think the Supreme Court would rule on his assessment?
- What was the “right thing” that Trump and his rally-goers wanted Pence to do on Jan 6?
I’d wager you don’t even know who Eastman is, but maybe you’ll surprise me.
It is not my job to "show" you anything or "inform you" of anything. That is your responsibility. You, for reasons known only to yourself, made allegations that show clear evidence of personal enmity and emotional reasoning. Rather than let your allegations pass without comment, I chose (for reasons of my own) to dispute them.
Having do so, I will not bother to litigate the issue in Glenn's comment section because (as the saying goes) a man cannot be be reasoned out of what he was not been reasoned in to. (Another parable about singing livestock comes to mind, but I'll let that go.) Happy Holidays.
Haha! That’s a really cute retort Owen, but you can’t answer a single one of my questions, can you?
Go give the ‘Eastman memos’ a quick Google and then get back to me. You’re going to find out pretty quickly who the ignorant one here is.
Luke: I invite you to reread my response and, in view of yours just above, perhaps "google" (an execrable verb) the "singing livestock" parable.
This is why I'm letting my subscription lapse. This is what polarization has wrought: highly intelligent professors who either celebrate October 7 or tout this idiotic lawfare narrative. It has become insufferable. Thanks for your clarity of thought!
I just rejoined, but I hear you re the lawfare narrative.