Excellent news for our nation's MAGAnauts:
JUST IN: Chief Justice Roberts grants Trump temporary stay on release of tax records to congressional committee. Asks for response from committee by Thursday
— Robert Barnes (@scotusreporter) November 1, 2022
Our newly conservative justice system has played its role perfectly. They don't need to rule in favor of Trump, after all. All they have to do is delay things until Democrats lose control of the House. That looks much less suspicious, doesn't it?
I am not a constitutional scholar and think that Trump is a complete scum bag. HOWEVER, I think we are heading down a dangerous path. If you prosecute Trump, what are the odds that the next Republican President will prosecute a senior Democrat such as Kamala Harris.
Note, I am NOT saying Harris (or any Democrat) has done anything worth prosecution. And yes, I know my perspective likely means letting Trump off of likely crimes. My point, once we go down this path both sides will see prosecution as a valid political weapon...
And you think if they don't prosecute Trump, that will stop them from prosecuting Biden or Harris?
BWAHAHAHAHAhahaha!!!
Somehow letting Republican presidents get away with crimes isn't a dangerous path itself?
W got away with it for starting a war with bullshit "evidence". Yet Trump is somehow worse? Why? Because he's uncouth?
If you're going to troll here, you need to do better than that.
If you don't prosecute Trump, what are the odds that the MAGA right is emboldened to normalize even more atrocious behavior?
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. At some point, you've got to walk through the fire rather than try to find paths around it. Maybe getting a little burnt now is better than getting incinerated later. I vote "do".
I disagree. First, nothing has stopped Republicans in the past from silly investigations and prosecutions: John Durham's effort to pin something on somebody for the Russia-Trump campaign, the year's long investigations of Clinton's real estate deal that led to impeachment over a lie to a question about infidelity, Benghazi, and when they take the House they will be going after Biden for some damn thing they've concocted in their tiny little minds.
Second, if Nixon had gone to jail, we wouldn't have had the even worse crimes of Reagan. If Reagan had gone to jail, Cheney & Bush wouldn't have been murdering and torturing people. If they'd gone to jail we wouldn't have had the criminality of Trump. Does anyone believe the Republicans can't find someone worse than Trump?
meant to say "Trump-Russia campaign investigation"
Gang you all raise good point. Yes, the GOP may well weaponize this concept no matter what the Democrats do. Yes, Trump likely committed crimes. Yes, the GOP has evil members.
HOWEVER, if the US develops the pattern, as seen in some countries, that winning the election means being able to prosecute the former leaders, I fear for our future.
You think elections are partisan now, imagine if you believe losing means you go to jail?
What happens to the limited cooperation that occurs now? While bipartisanship is FAR from perfect, I would guess it moves to zero. Without changes to say Senate rules, then our challenged government becomes impossible.
So sez middleoftheroaddem, well-known troll who is anything but 'middle of the road'.
ScentsofViolets - I don't know your definition of middle of the road. What I can share, I vote Democratic.
You are welcome to disagree with my point of view, I am unclear how my point of view, clearly I am not the only Democratic with my perspective, makes me a troll. I am not one for name calling and prefer to disagree on ideas....
You have a history, you know, one which does not accord with the modal prefernes of self-identified democrats.
If you want to call yourself a right-wing democrat, be my guest. But don't think for a moment you can get away with these sorts of tired old rhetorical ploys; in particular, that your 'middle of the road' democrat doesn't want Trump prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now that's just insulting our intelligence.
ScentofViolets
"You have a history, you know, one which does not accord with the modal prefernes of self-identified democrats."
Perhaps you should check your priors: I believe my outlook is pretty similar to lots of moderate Democrats. Either way, my vote counts the same as yours....
So what is your evidence that moderate Democrats don't want Trump prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Or is this yet another case of 'No true Democrat ...'?
ScentOfViolets - I lack data, as in survey information. However, given current national polling, do you think prosecution of Trump will make Biden more, or less, popular?
i) Thought so and ii), yet more vagueness. Could you get any greasier?
BTW: I am what in earlier times would have been called an Eisenhower Republican. Shocker, you're well to the right of me. So just give it up and be honest about your allegiances: You are -- at best -- a conservative Democrat.
If this were purely a political issue, perhaps you are correct. But Trump has counted on people framing everything that way every time he steps well outside the laws and norms of our system This is not the same as letting Reagan off the hook for Iran Contra (though perhaps we should not have). Reagan wasn't loudly and publicly flaunting his misbehavior.
Let's turn it around. Did anyone ( excluding Cheney, Kinzinger, Romney and a one or two others) anyone in the GOP ask themselves "if we let Trump get away with ...... (fill in the blank but particularly January 6 and the big lie ) then the next Democratic President might totally disrupt the next election and claim victory no matter what " No they did not. Congress and the justice department need to do the right thing and ignore the politics .
Seems to me, one would have a valid malicious prosecution claim that would blow back against anyone involved at the DoJ and across gov't branches, were they to heed the demands of a Republican president to pursue a meritless prosecution.
After all, probable cause is still required and above that, a successful criminal prosecution would have to exceed reasonable doubt.
D_Ohrik_E1 - one would hope the DOJ would not cooperate. However, don't think, with lots of smart attorneys, the GOP could almost certainty find a reason for criminal charges? Presidents etc make tons of decisions and difficult choices: I suspect, with four or eight years of records, one can always find something that looks like a crime....
Okay, name one. Be specific, and show your work; vaguely worded bromides need not apply.
Being smart has nothing to do with having evidence of a crime.
To be clear, I do not have evidence of a crime: rather, my point, with the advantage of confidential documentation, hearing etc I SUSPECT one can find items.
For example, I read an article that claimed that Eric Holder could be prosecutored for Fast and Furious. Do I think Holder should face criminal charges, no. Do I think the risk of future legal action will change actions while in office, yes.
Legal action is a weapon. I rather not move into a world that this weapon is commonly used.
It would be remarkably difficult to prosecute Holder for F&F, over a decade after the fact. For one, the IG's report said otherwise. Second, I'm not even sure what crimes he could be charged with, but unless they involved sex crimes, treason, terrorism, or that which would invoke the death penalty, their statute of limitations have expired. Even conspiracy charges have run out of time.
Claiming that a crime can be uncovered ("find items") if they dig enough, is not quite right. To dig, you first must establish probable cause to a judge. Citing a Dinesh D'Souza movie or a Steve Bannon podcast alleging a conspiracy or crime isn't going to cut it.
As hinted in Mr. Drum's post above, the courts have joined the GOP, so you can't count on them to stop frivolous and malicious prosecution of political rivals.
If we just let him re-militarize the Rhineland…
If we just let him have Austria…
If we just let him have Sudetenland…
If we just let him have Czechoslovakia…
…then perhaps that will satisfy him.
Thank you Rick, you have summarized what I would have posted.
We cannot stop Republicans from engaging in specious prosecutions. But fortunately we have juries in America.
Out of curiosity, what is the status of Kegan’s stay on what came before her circuit: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/11/01/politics/trump-tax-returns-supreme-court-john-roberts/index.html
"Look, how often do we have to tell you that he's above the law when we have any say in the matter?"
"Our newly conservative justice system has played its role perfectly."
Please stop calling them "conservative." They are right-wing extremists. These extremists are hiding behind the "conservative" brand, and the MSM is complicit in this elision. There is nothing conservative about them.
1+
The word Conservative shoudl either not be used for the current "right" in the US, or be put in scare quotes.
I would rather refer to those six Justices as Republicans. Like this: "Republican Supreme Court Justice Amy Barret said . . . ." We need to try to normalize that, because it is more accurate than calling them conservative.
People often forget that this whole thing started with Trump saying he would release his tax returns, then reneging on that promise because he said he was "under audit". Of course there's no rule against releasing your taxes while you're under audit. In fact, there's a good PR argument for doing so. The government has to keep mum, so you can put your version of things out there and promote it while the government can't say anything about it.
Anyway, then the NYT reported that the "under audit" thing was kinda-sorta true because the IRS had been arguing with Trump for 10 years about whether $73 million of tax breaks he claimed were legit. And to this day, so far as we know, the IRS is still arguing with Trump. So, the good news is, any day we could wake up to a headline saying "IRS hits Trump for $73 million in back taxes". Here's hoping.
More on this from the NYT here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/us/trump-taxes-takeaways.html
Maybe let the process go through, first. Administrative stays aren't a sign of politics getting in the way of justice.
Pull my finger.
Read Rick Jones' comment, first.
Supreme Court just released an unsigned order allowing J6 committee to enforce its subpoena on Lindsey Graham, following an administrative stay by Thomas, and a review by the full court.
Process.
Perhaps, but it would seem they do not do so consistently: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/01/supreme-court-denies-sen-lindsey-grahams-request-to-avoid-testifying-in-georgia-election-interference-case.html