Chef's kiss to the usual brilliant 'headlines' for each piece. My favorites this morning are 'Stone Cold Assassin, Talk to the Hand and Pass the Damn Popcorn'. We've got to take our pleasure any way we can. 😆. Good mix of evil and snarky this morning.
I wonder who are these protestors and counter-protestors. So far all I've heard are sweeping generalities. My 18 year old grand daughter fears Biden could lose the young vote over this.
When Jared Kushner said Jews at Columbia would be safer in Saudi Arabia in October, 2023, it was clear the protests were an op. Media fell right in line for the coverage. Now Moses Mike is saying it was to provoke cracks in the Democrats (queue the squad) to have footage exposing the violence for their political ads. Well played TPM, well played.
Criticism of Israel = anti-Semitism is getting closer and closer to be written into state and federal statutes, largely at the behest of people who usually don't give a shit about Jews or Palestinians. Just another effort to gain political points at other people's expense. Such puffed-up,pompous self-righteousness, enough to physically sicken one.
I've been thinking a lot about authoritarianism lately, unsurprisingly, not in leaders, but in every day people. Reading a lot of comments on articles in the NY Times, it is aparent that there are people who abhor any kind of messiness and need things to be black and white. Perhaps, likely, they were raised in households that operated this way--right, wrong, no discussion, no compromise, do this, don't do that, or else you get punished. And perhaps many of these people end up living their own lives this way, admiring people who operate this way, and voting for candidates that operate this way. In comments about the protesters on campuses around the country, these authoritarians are just so mad about these protests. They say things like, Lock them up! Show them what's what! The protesters are bad/unruly/disruptive/spoiled/ entitled/privileged, not to mention wrong, period. The problem is that humans are complicated and messy. There is no black and white. It's interesting and I think a lot of Trump voters are like this, and to a degree, a lot of GOP voters.
As I continue to chew on the question of why everyone is talking about ACTS that are immune rather than compliance with the DUTIES that make them official, I've come up against another question. (See my own Substack for thoughts on that first question.)
What exactly is immunity supposed to protect a former president FROM? (I'll go with impeachment as the method to use while he's actually in office. That was the "protection" the country had for civil suits filed while a president was in office (Fitzgerald in Nixon v Fitzgerald, originally sued in January 1974). But after that? Is it immunity from prosecution or immunity from CONVICTION?
Since pretty much any act can be criminal in the right circumstances, shouldn't prosecutors be able to show that the circumstances made any act, even if one of that would in most circumstances be innocent-- or in this context, Official-- criminal? The burden would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances did convert the act to a crime. Jury instructions would make it clear that if the failed to prove that the act in question didn't exceed the powers and duties of the president the act could not be criminal (though other acts alleged might be).
There are plenty of bars before any prosecution could be brought, including having to convince a grand jury.
I'm sure Smith mulled this issue over, but apart from the note that a president accepting a bribe to name an ambassador would not be an official duty) I haven't seen it actually argued. Does anyone know if not, why not?
Chef's kiss to the usual brilliant 'headlines' for each piece. My favorites this morning are 'Stone Cold Assassin, Talk to the Hand and Pass the Damn Popcorn'. We've got to take our pleasure any way we can. 😆. Good mix of evil and snarky this morning.
Most of these "protestors" have no affiliation with the schools. I smell a Russian rat.
Trump has pretty much exactly the thoughts you’d expect re what’s going on at Columbia and elsewhere:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-beautiful-to-watch-police-raid-columbia-pro-palestinian-student-protests/
As good a sign as any of what may be coming if he’s returned to office.
Too: one has to contemplate why what’s reported in the linked piece seems to have been ignored by our own exceptional news media.
I wonder who are these protestors and counter-protestors. So far all I've heard are sweeping generalities. My 18 year old grand daughter fears Biden could lose the young vote over this.
When Jared Kushner said Jews at Columbia would be safer in Saudi Arabia in October, 2023, it was clear the protests were an op. Media fell right in line for the coverage. Now Moses Mike is saying it was to provoke cracks in the Democrats (queue the squad) to have footage exposing the violence for their political ads. Well played TPM, well played.
Criticism of Israel = anti-Semitism is getting closer and closer to be written into state and federal statutes, largely at the behest of people who usually don't give a shit about Jews or Palestinians. Just another effort to gain political points at other people's expense. Such puffed-up,pompous self-righteousness, enough to physically sicken one.
I've been thinking a lot about authoritarianism lately, unsurprisingly, not in leaders, but in every day people. Reading a lot of comments on articles in the NY Times, it is aparent that there are people who abhor any kind of messiness and need things to be black and white. Perhaps, likely, they were raised in households that operated this way--right, wrong, no discussion, no compromise, do this, don't do that, or else you get punished. And perhaps many of these people end up living their own lives this way, admiring people who operate this way, and voting for candidates that operate this way. In comments about the protesters on campuses around the country, these authoritarians are just so mad about these protests. They say things like, Lock them up! Show them what's what! The protesters are bad/unruly/disruptive/spoiled/ entitled/privileged, not to mention wrong, period. The problem is that humans are complicated and messy. There is no black and white. It's interesting and I think a lot of Trump voters are like this, and to a degree, a lot of GOP voters.
As I continue to chew on the question of why everyone is talking about ACTS that are immune rather than compliance with the DUTIES that make them official, I've come up against another question. (See my own Substack for thoughts on that first question.)
What exactly is immunity supposed to protect a former president FROM? (I'll go with impeachment as the method to use while he's actually in office. That was the "protection" the country had for civil suits filed while a president was in office (Fitzgerald in Nixon v Fitzgerald, originally sued in January 1974). But after that? Is it immunity from prosecution or immunity from CONVICTION?
Since pretty much any act can be criminal in the right circumstances, shouldn't prosecutors be able to show that the circumstances made any act, even if one of that would in most circumstances be innocent-- or in this context, Official-- criminal? The burden would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances did convert the act to a crime. Jury instructions would make it clear that if the failed to prove that the act in question didn't exceed the powers and duties of the president the act could not be criminal (though other acts alleged might be).
There are plenty of bars before any prosecution could be brought, including having to convince a grand jury.
I'm sure Smith mulled this issue over, but apart from the note that a president accepting a bribe to name an ambassador would not be an official duty) I haven't seen it actually argued. Does anyone know if not, why not?