Except that Popehat’s analysis here is entirely incorrect. This isn’t just a case of, “being arrested for resisting arrest.” The situation which might be investigated or even prosecuted centers on actions which suggest a person in authority has been using that authority to make themselves immune to investigation or prosecution. We have laws against that for a reason, we need to be able to scrutinize our leaders in case they’re committing illegal acts. To call this a technicality then is entirely off base. This isn’t busting Clinton for lying about a blow job entirely unrelated to the investigation, this is Trump actively attempting to undermine fundamental operations of the institution.
If we want to stop prosecuting criminals because imposing legal sanctions on them won’t, “save the nation,” then hell yeah, I’ve got some banks to rob, but pretending that Trump’s alleged attempts to obstruct criminal investigations against him are irrelevant, incidental or merely, “technicalities,” is ridiculous. I’m frankly a little surprised Popehat decided to try to make that argument, doubly surprised to see that anyone at Boingboing thought it was a good one.
Thinking of examples like Nixon and Capone is the whole problem, though. The principle of “yeah, but we all know they’re guilty” is the ultimate stopped clock that’s right twice a day. And it’s probably worth mentioning that tax evasion is a crime, and Nixon wasn’t convicted of anything, so neither of those really makes the case for short-circuiting due process anyway.
I happen to agree the Turmp-as-victim argument is absolute horseshit. But if that were true, and the Magic Justice Fairy appeared and said “from this day forward, no one will ever be tried or convicted in bad faith or on spurious grounds”, I’d be all in favor. But it’s a moot point, to put it mildly.
Back in reality, if anyone says “we must spare Turmp because look how the government treated Aaron Schwartz”, like @anon50609448, I’m inclined to think “nah, as long as they keep prescribing it, politicians should take their own medicine”.
Nixon was pardoned before he could be charged with anything (I guess that’s a thing). Had he not, he probably would have been charged with a crime_ probably obstruction of justice. I do think these are relevant examples. I might be misunderstanding your comment about the short-circuiting of due process– so far Trump may or may not be under investigation and hasn’t been charged with anything, so I don’t see any due process violation except from the hysterical media. Trump being ‘persecuted’ by the media is pure irony.
I agree that presumption of guilt is obviously the wrong way to go about justice and we should not assume that Trump is guilty of “collusion” without evidence. Hence the need for legitimate investigation free from obstruction. Lets recognize that Trump has made demonstrable lapses in legality in his business dealings (consider the fraud of Trump U and illegal use of his charity). Sometimes you just have to go for the dirt that sticks.
I realize the Aaron Schwartz prosecution is the flip-side to this arrangement. That case was a terrible mis-application of the law, and I admit that I don’t know how to square that case with this one. My intuition says that the difference lies in the power discrepancy at hand (and also the substance of the potential crime): Trump is the president and a billionaire and may have, you know, done really bad stuff… He can pay for the lawyers and get a sweet pardon if it comes to that.
It’s probably testament to my position of privilege that I’m thinking strategically about this at all. I don’t think giving racists a voice is usually a good idea (I think Laci Green is making a really bad decision, forex), but I do worry that the same tools used to deprive racists of a platform can be used - and will be used more often - to deprive marginalized people of a platform. Or, in this instance, that the same tools used to unseat a maniac can be turned to unseat President Michelle Obama in 2024 or something (admittedly, that’s a problem I’d LOVE to have…)
It’s also not my place to tell anyone else how to fight, of curse, so I’m not trying to rain on the schadenfreude parade.
I think people worry too much about “the same tools” being used. As we both agreed, unseating Trump on a “technicality” (he technically violated the constitution? he technically committed crimes?) would essentially be palace intrigue. Impeachment is political rather than legal anyway. If congress all agreed to impeach Trump and voted unanimously to do so, it wouldn’t matter if the articles of impeachment were just:
Fuck you
And the horse you rode in on*
It’s not really comparable to young black men being subject to street checks that turn into arrests for resisting arrest in any event.
* I’m not a legal scholar, and maybe this would actually open the door to a SCOTUS challenge of the impeachment, but they could put a very flimsy excuse as long as it even looked like they were trying.
Maybe I’m hopelessly pessimistic, but I happen to agree with you here. Human nature seems to naturally produce… much worse. I mean, look at some of the other folks we have sitting in palaces right now. We have Rodrigo Duterte, explicitly promoting extra-judicial killings of suspected criminals. We have Bashar al-Assad dropping chemical weapons on the heads on innocents. Fatty Kim the Third. Creeping right-wing insanity slouching on Europe.
A bit earlier… Slobodan Milošević… Pol Pot… Old Adolf himself…
I don’t mean to disabuse you of your optimism – it’s better to be optimistic than pessimistic in general – but I see little evidence that participatory democracy is some kind of answer. Let’s not forget that most genocides are actually participatory, grass-roots events. And participatory media? Media is becoming a lot more participatory, but that doesn’t seem to be making things better. Contrast the average Youtube comments thread to the average “letters to the editor” section of a non-participatory newspaper. I don’t see much gain there.
The crime for which he is being investigated - obstructing justice. By first leaning on the head of the FBI to stop an investigation into a protege’s actions, and then firing the guy when the pressure tactic didn’t work.
Also sexual assault.
Also it’s perhaps not criminal but I understand the emoluments clause has not been repealed.
Those are just the admitted ones I can think of off the top of my head.
That’s basically what I expected from the headline and was surprised that article took the “trickle-down justice” tack instead. (love that phrase, btw) Regardless of how Don the Con gets convicted a substantial portion of the electorate will believe that he was unfairly persecuted. IIRC, Nixon had more than 20% approval even after he abdicated. And that was with him on tape blatantly committing the crime and without an entire media eco-system dedicated to monetizing the victimhood complex of his supporters. We should be so lucky as to get such irrefutable and easily understood evidence in this case.
We may never be able to prove he wanted to roll over for russia in exchange for personal enrichment. But that doesn’t matter. The fact that he wanted to roll over without expecting anything in return for the US is collusion by the legal definition, but not necessarily in the court of public opinion. And when even anti-trumpers think the legal definition isn’t sufficient, that does not bode well for how the people who make up his base will react.
FWIW, I think democratic participation is necessary but not sufficient. We also need strong, trusted institutions. I don’t think we are suffering from a surfeit of participation, but rather an erosion of high-quality institutional participation in the public sphere.
On the right institutions have been attacked because they interfered with the “greed is good” agenda and on the left institutions have been subverted from within by narrow-minded self-interest of those running them. That doesn’t mean we’ve lost them completely, but they are in a weakened state that has allowed parasites like Pumpkin Pol Pot to infect the system. Other countries with weaker institutions (like the Philippines) have been even more easily colonized by parasites.
Technically, the Electoral College provision in the Constitution is a technicality, over-riding the main intent of it, that we live under a democratically elected government.
Trump was elected by a technicality; there’s nothing wrong with unelecting him with one.
