Circle the Wagon

Trump is poison for the Republican Party.

By , and
105

Sarah, Steve, and Jonah return to talk about Trump’s indictment in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Also:

–Dispatch Editors: The GOP’s Trump Choice
-But her emails
-Conservatives should just say what they believe
-Biden administration violates the Hatch Act
-Pe-cahn or Pee-can
-Biden’s estranged grandchild

By , and
Comments (105)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Ms. Isgur, or anyone: Has there ever been a judge before whom Trump (as distinct from the Trump Administration) appeared who, by the end of the day, Trump didn't end up attacking in the press as "hating Trump," etc.? I can't think of one. I expect Judge Cannon will soon be about as well-regarded by our former president as his own former attorneys-general or SCOTUS picks.

    Which is to say: Not only is the recusal furor nonsense, but to whatever hypothetical extent Judge Cannon might otherwise have faced a personal and professional challenge to guard against possible bias in her discretionary rulings on the basis of who appointed her, this issue is likely to take care of itself after his first public reaction to her first major less-than-lickspittle ruling (which is likely to come on a motion to dismiss).

    Mr. Goldberg: You referenced at one time Trump not listening to "all these lawyers he has who he's paying out the @ss."

    I demur: They're surely billing him out the @ass. He's almost certainly stiffing them. His uniform reputation in the New York legal community, according to my former partners there who know him (because they foreclosed on the Plaza, among other reasons), is: "Won't listen, won't pay."

    EDIT: I was eating Goode Company barbecue as I listened to this podcast. And shame on you, Mr. Goldberg, for being so credulous as to let that TSA guard pull your leg. Ms. Isgur's pronunciation of the name of the state tree of Texas, the pecan, is authentically Texan. Link: https://www.kvue.com/article/life/survey-reveals-texans-preferred-pronunciation-of-pecan/269-bd051db4-a54b-4d27-b8c7-b0304ea155a7

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Mary

    Yes Sarah!! Correct pronunciation of pecan. Only correct pronunciation is how Sarah said it!

    Collapse
  3. Affable Misanthrope

    I find "her emails" a much more compelling argument than The Dispatch staff has credited. Steve and Jonah both concede Hillary should have been charged, but argue that the proper response to selective prosecution is to start enforcing the law. Agreed! However, there must be a reasonable basis to conclude that we have fixed the flaws that allowed selective prosecution in the first place, and that subsequent prosecutions are part of a new era of nonpartisan enforcement. The problem is that have no such assurances. The Department of Justice has not said it erred in letting Hillary off. Without an admission that selective prosecution ever happened, there is no reason to think any steps have been taken to prevent its reoccurrence. It is therefore reasonable to object to a Trump indictment on selective prosecution grounds.

    I don't think it was mentioned here, but the staff editorial argued that Trump's misconduct exceeds Hillary's. In light of the selective prosecution argument this becomes irrelevant. The Comey standard was not a goodfaith interpretation of the law. It was a pretextual interpretation intended to avoid a Hillary indictment. Thus the question is not whether Trump has exceeded the Comey standard, but whether there is some new pretextual standard that can be invented to avoid a Trump indictment. In that light we must give more credit to defenses of Trump that would otherwise seem far-fetched.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pbanuski

      And what of the failure of Trump's DOJ to prosecute Clinton? If ever there was an opportunity to correct the record and say they shouldn't have let Hillary off, then why didn't they?

      If you cannot answer that, then I'm sorry, you don't have a good point here.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        DoJ doesn't explain declinations of prosecution, for very good reasons. However, it is reasonable to presume that there were a combination of factors:

        First and foremost, when the Director of the FBI has exonerated you on national TV, the chances of your being convicted thereafter drop essentially to zero — even if he was wrong about both the law and the import of the evidence, and even if he was wildly usurping authority that by law resided not in the FBI but in the DoJ (regardless of Comey's personal subjective conclusion that the AG had a disabling conflict of interest; her deputy DID NOT, and Comey reported to him, not the AG, anyway).

        Second, by the close of the Obama Administration, a great many of Hillary Clinton's staff and close circle had been promised immunity — gratuitously, like candy for the teacher's favorite kids awarded even before the spelling bee, and wildly contrary to normal investigative practice — meaning they couldn't be flipped or otherwise persuaded to testify against her in meaningful ways. The investigation was profoundly unserious, but DID have the nasty consequence (from a Rule of Law standpoint) of rewarding a lot of noncooperation and spoiling the potential witness-and-codefendant pool.

        Third, some of the conduct at issue stretched back several years. Over time, relevant statutes of limitations run, witnesses move away or die, evidence gets lost, and recollections get fuzzier, not sharper. And convictions become harder to get, and harder to uphold on appeal.

        Together, these factors suggest that what could have been a righteous investigation and prosecution that might have secured a conviction if initiated during the Obama Administration, before Comey aborted all normal processes, was utterly impracticable by the time of the Trump Administration.

        She has NOT been exonerated. She still has her constitutional presumption of innocence, but the failure of the Trump DoJ to indict her adds nothing at all to that.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pbanuski

          As to the first issue, yes, I concede that Comey's statement made it more difficult to come after her after that, but not impossible. As you say, the power doesn't ultimately rest with him; it rests with the AG and their deputies. But again, there's a limit to how difficult this made things. More difficult is not impossible, and if ever there was a permission structure to throw the FBI director under the bus and say, "Well, actually..." then it was in the Trump administration.

          Second... maybe?.... Is your contention they shouldn't have been granted immunity or were granted immunity for too little information? How do you know? Monday morning, quarterbacking these decisions is very easy. You and I don't know why the decisions were taken at the time unless you have some prescience I do not possess.

          Your third point is, I'm afraid, the most unserious- we're talking about a few weeks to months, not years when the Trump administration DOJ could have taken action once they took office. It was not "utterly impractical."

          These factors might suggest that there were major errors, and an investigation may have led to an arrest and an indictment, but that's not the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from the facts.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            No, it wouldn't have just been difficult to get a conviction after Comey. It would have been impossible. NO JURY WOULD FAIL TO FIND A REASONABLE DOUBT AFTER THE FBI DIRECTOR CLEARED HER.

            This isn't a close call. I suggest you ask around among lawyers you trust more than me, if you doubt me on this. You will find a very, very, very consistent answer, I predict.

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Rev Snow

    Steve is willing to speculate about how the news coverage of Navy Biden might be different if the parties were reversed.

    There's no need to speculate though, as anyone who remembers the name Tripp Palin can tell you.

    The media wants to keep white trash out of the halls of power... but only sometimes.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Mkapnick

    Sarah seemed to make the Bulwark's point and no one noticed....

    When discussing how to counter Trump in the primary, Sarah made the point that it simply is not possible to convince a majority of GOP voters that Trump is a bad guy. And then the conversation moved on to other strategies.

    And no one blinked an eye.

    Of course, I understand Sarah, Jonah and Steve know that Donald Trump is a bad guy. A terrible human being, unfit to be President (or dog catcher) and, as we now understand it, a national security risk.

    But the majority of the GOP refuses to see the truth about this man. They are like the monkey with his hands over his eyes and ears. So, what does that say about them? (GOP voters).

    Which at The Bulwark is Bill’s and Mona’s and Charlie’s and JVL’s entire point. The GOP is broken. They refuse to see the truth about Trump. It is invasion of the body snatchers (as Jonah said in 2016) and the aliens have won. The Crazies have taken over. And if Donald Trump is a threat to our democratic institutions (and our national security!) and the majority of GOP voters can not be persuaded that this is so, then isn’t the GOP also a threat to our democratic institutions?

    Now, are the Dems great? No. Good? No. Reasonably bad? Maybe?

    I live in Portland friggin Oregon. No one understand the real-world consequences of the Progressive Left’s bad ideas more than I do. And it is definitely not great, Bob!

    I understand the objection to the Dems. I would strongly prefer the Dems moderate to broaden their appeal to center-right voters and I agree, they have not really done so.

    But as bad as they are, they ain’t so crazy as to defend a guy like Donald Trump. Not just defend but want him back as President!

    What am I missing?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Michael Garrett

    I waited in vain for someone to interject the legend of President Lyndon Johnson’s admonishing a marine who tried to redirect the president to the specific aircraft that was ready to transport him after he began walking to another.

    “Mr. President, your helicopter is over there.”

    “Son, they’re ALL my helicopters!”

    And don’t forget how he ordered the removal of almost everything that was not bolted down inside Air Force One upon landing in Austin on the afternoon of January 20, 1969.

    Collapse
  7. Pohl

    Biden’s slighting his grandchild is disturbing, but I’ve never had much respect for his character. I’ve been supporting him here lately based on foreign-policy achievements. I continue to do so for re-election, barring undeniable signs of encroaching senility, because the GOP field is a train wreck for reasons so well laid out in this podcast.

    Collapse
  8. Stratmanam

    With respect to Biden running again, I would suggest an alternate theory on why he’s doing it that I haven’t heard from anyone.
    It’s obvious he’s too old and his mental state is such that he’s not capable of being president for four more years.
    The problem is that his hand picked successor Harris is not capable of successfully running and winning. Everyone recognizes that. Given that, what’s the Democrats solution? Have Biden win the presidency for her. He knows he can’t function for four more years. He just has to win the election and hand the unelectable candidate the keys to the White House. Thoughts?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      I don't think he necessarily has a strong desire to see Harris in the White House. He picked her as his VP to honor his promise (stupid IMO) to pick a minority woman. And he made that promise (stupid IMO) to appeal to a specific portion of his base--people who are energized by identity politics--in order to win the Presidency.

      I think he genuinely thinks he is still capable and the best choice for beating Trump again.

      Collapse
  9. Austin302

    Re: Pardoning: If the indictment is true that Trump leaked a classified war plan for the selfish purpose of undermining General Milley’s reputation, and if Trump keeps insisting he did “everything right” as he said this week, then the public safety/national defense interest would call for *not* pardoning Trump and letting him remain incarcerated to prevent him from leaking more national defense information for as long as possible. (We should assume Trump still remembers at least some defense information from his presidential briefings. He may also have more classified documents hidden somewhere.)

    If Trump leaks more national defense information after being pardoned, the President responsible for setting Trump free would share responsibility with him for the consequences of those future leaks. (Fool me twice, shame on me.)

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    WorkDog

    As someone who was born and grew up in Houston with a pecan tree in my backyard, I can attest that Sarah's pronunciation is the only true and correct one.

    Collapse
    1. PKirch

      When this New England native moved to Memphis years ago, I was informed in no uncertain terms that a PEE-can was what one kept under the bed. A puh-CAHN goes in delicious pies. Sarah is correct!

      Collapse
Load More