Isn't it odd that so many of us can be absolutely (and accurately) aware that "law" is a kind of specific structure for mediating (and concentrating) power, and that it has no special correspondence to justice or democracy and yet we get so profoundly nervous at the thought of using legal structures with something like a consciously political intent? I mean, I fully understand why we hesitate. It's not that we are doing something with law that is unusual--it is used politically all the time, especially by conservatives. It's more like a genre constraint. If you say you're writing a science fiction novel and instead what you seem to have written is a work of autofiction set in 1998 and there's no clever metafictional bridge to explain why your declared intention has been paid off, you tend to get a lot of aggravated readers who think you violated the genre you were aiming at. To do "law" right, you have to appear disinterestedly apolitical. That is, for liberals and even leftists--that is what they expect of the genre. For conservatives, quite the opposite at this point: it's all about the instrumental end and not about the process; they are hoping for 'law' to go by the wayside in favor of executive decree. But they will do that regardless of what is done now in reference to Trump.
Let’s remember here, it’s the National Archives who the Justice Department is representing. The documents belong to them, and for whatever reason Trump was resistant, he’s wrong. End of basic story. Now, if in the course of serving a lawful search warrant, evidence of other crimes is found, tough shit Orange One and all involved. On to next step of which the court procedures are well established.
"You come at the king, you best not miss." --Omar Little, "The Wire"
Omar was right. And that's the only thing that gives me pause—the concern that we might miss. Fortunately, I think that Garland understands that. And if Garland thinks he can make a case, he will strike. He cannot, of course, guarantee that twelve jurors will vote to convict. But I think that if he sees the odds as better than even, he will charge the former guy.
Probably reasonable to argue that it will all be moot if Repubs take both Houses in November. Garland impeached and replaced with a stooge, Biden impeached, all investigations/indictments dropped against Trump on the grounds that they are “political”. Harris lame duck interim president, unless they impeach her too. Meanwhile, Repub state and federal authorities dismantle remnants of regulatory state and proceed with election rigging efforts. By 2024, unless he’s hambourgeoised himself to death by then, Trump can’t lose. Police suppress “violent” protests, because everything Repubs have done is “legal”. Completion of coup d’état.
I'll say this. If (when ) Trump gets indicted and bound over for trial, the DOJ or NY state authorities, or the Atlanta DA had better bring their A game to jury selection. I will take only one fact-challenged Trump supporter to hang a conviction jury.
No question, it's a slippery road to any sort of conviction. There isn't a defense lawyer or prosecutor, state or federal, who hasn't seen a case go south due to some astounding screw up or wholly unexpected bs. The holdout juror is one such possibility, but that results in the possibility of a retrial. So, fuck 'em, retry him. Here, the simple truth is, a simple case such as this, assuming a violation related to the mere taking of documents, is less prone to such an adverse result and many a total collapse has begun with a tiny crack. If more serious violations are found and charged, the risk of some sort of technical or substantive fuck up increases. In such a case, both sides take a beating, and as far as this circumstance, fuck 'em, fuck 'em up as much as you can.
Isn't it odd that so many of us can be absolutely (and accurately) aware that "law" is a kind of specific structure for mediating (and concentrating) power, and that it has no special correspondence to justice or democracy and yet we get so profoundly nervous at the thought of using legal structures with something like a consciously political intent? I mean, I fully understand why we hesitate. It's not that we are doing something with law that is unusual--it is used politically all the time, especially by conservatives. It's more like a genre constraint. If you say you're writing a science fiction novel and instead what you seem to have written is a work of autofiction set in 1998 and there's no clever metafictional bridge to explain why your declared intention has been paid off, you tend to get a lot of aggravated readers who think you violated the genre you were aiming at. To do "law" right, you have to appear disinterestedly apolitical. That is, for liberals and even leftists--that is what they expect of the genre. For conservatives, quite the opposite at this point: it's all about the instrumental end and not about the process; they are hoping for 'law' to go by the wayside in favor of executive decree. But they will do that regardless of what is done now in reference to Trump.
Trump would be a good target for a bill of attainder, if that were allowed.
Let’s remember here, it’s the National Archives who the Justice Department is representing. The documents belong to them, and for whatever reason Trump was resistant, he’s wrong. End of basic story. Now, if in the course of serving a lawful search warrant, evidence of other crimes is found, tough shit Orange One and all involved. On to next step of which the court procedures are well established.
Fuck ‘em.
"You come at the king, you best not miss." --Omar Little, "The Wire"
Omar was right. And that's the only thing that gives me pause—the concern that we might miss. Fortunately, I think that Garland understands that. And if Garland thinks he can make a case, he will strike. He cannot, of course, guarantee that twelve jurors will vote to convict. But I think that if he sees the odds as better than even, he will charge the former guy.
Probably reasonable to argue that it will all be moot if Repubs take both Houses in November. Garland impeached and replaced with a stooge, Biden impeached, all investigations/indictments dropped against Trump on the grounds that they are “political”. Harris lame duck interim president, unless they impeach her too. Meanwhile, Repub state and federal authorities dismantle remnants of regulatory state and proceed with election rigging efforts. By 2024, unless he’s hambourgeoised himself to death by then, Trump can’t lose. Police suppress “violent” protests, because everything Repubs have done is “legal”. Completion of coup d’état.
On the other hand…
I'll say this. If (when ) Trump gets indicted and bound over for trial, the DOJ or NY state authorities, or the Atlanta DA had better bring their A game to jury selection. I will take only one fact-challenged Trump supporter to hang a conviction jury.
💣💣💥
Yes. Fuck it, indeed. Everything here makes me fear that the DOJ will mishandle this however.
No question, it's a slippery road to any sort of conviction. There isn't a defense lawyer or prosecutor, state or federal, who hasn't seen a case go south due to some astounding screw up or wholly unexpected bs. The holdout juror is one such possibility, but that results in the possibility of a retrial. So, fuck 'em, retry him. Here, the simple truth is, a simple case such as this, assuming a violation related to the mere taking of documents, is less prone to such an adverse result and many a total collapse has begun with a tiny crack. If more serious violations are found and charged, the risk of some sort of technical or substantive fuck up increases. In such a case, both sides take a beating, and as far as this circumstance, fuck 'em, fuck 'em up as much as you can.
I address John's essay in my Substack, here: https://trysterotapes.substack.com/p/why-the-right-will-not-revolt
Sorry you're not comfortable but I don't think this is the "authoritarian playbook"