Two things that it's clear are needed which all Democratic candidates for president should pledge to do.
a. Promise that anyone they appoint to be Attorney General will get rid of that bureaucratically imposed ban on indicting a sitting president for serious felonies of the kind Trump has committed.
b. Promise to try to change things make it a requirement that the House votes to approve of cabinet officials, it's clear the Senate alone is an invitation to corruption. If the argument is that the House might act irresponsibly, have you gotten a load of the Senate recently?
I am beginning to be persuaded that it might not only be a good idea for the House to take up impeachment soon, exposing the crimes of Trump and his crime family and the criminals he's put in charge of departments and agencies and on courts is essential. It will probably not get him removed from office, it would probably take the rest of his term but the truncated Mueller Report, which I'm still slogging through, is absolutely disgusting. Any Robert Muellers of the future should not be able to hide behind regulations that aren't laws. Not when the crimes are this serious and this dangerous to democracy. That Department of Justice regulation makes this, even temporarily, a nation of strong-man government, not law.
I agree with a growing number of people such as Joy Reid, Natasha Bertrand, Elie Mystal and Allan Lichtman, Robert Mueller handled the Trumps with kid gloves, he treated them in ways reserved for the privileged, ways that aren't supposed to happen in a nation of laws. To say that Donald Trump jr. isn't guilty of conspiracy because he's ignorant of the law or too stupid to have realized what he was doing was wrong - EVEN AS THE CREEP IN HIS LATE 30s WAS TRYING TO COVER UP WHAT HE WAS DOING is transparently an act of privileging a rich white collar criminal. As Joy Reid pointed out, there's a woman sentenced to five years in for voting while she was on probation, casting a provisional ballot because she wasn't sure sure she was eligible to vote, something that is normally legal, something she didn't know was illegal for her. I would love to see Mueller investigated to see who he had prosecuted to compare the treatment he gave poor people without law degrees as opposed to rich crooks, a comparison of that kind for the system in general. I would love to hear a Democrat bring up the case of Crystal Mason to Robert Mueller, a Woman who has been denied a new trial as she goes to prison for trying to vote in the election that Don jr. was trying to ratfuck with the Putin crime family. And he decided to let Don jr. off because he was ignorant of the law.
The amazement of how Mueller allowed his report to be spun by William Barr, the careful consideration is another thing I'll be going into. I've stopped being amazed considering that last point.
Unfortunately, the privileging of white collar criminals is baked into society, it's not a requirement of the legal system.
ReplyDeleteJustice, in ideal, is blind, and the scales of justice balance without the sight of Justice. But juries see black people as looters, white people as trying to survive (to reference that famous set of AP photos from Katrina days).The lift of proving mens rea, the "criminal intent" everybody misunderstands, is a heavier lift when the defendant is a) rich, b) white, and c) has a good lawyer to throw sand in the air on this specific point.
Intent doesn't mean "I intended to violate criminal law, and specifically this federal statute," it means you did what you meant to do. It's really better understood as the difference between negligence (I looked at my car radio when the pedestrian stepped into the street) v. knowingly acting (I gunned the engine when the pedestrian stepped into the street). One crime is manslaughter; the other is homicide. One could even be excused as an accident; the other clearly can't.
Could Don, Jr. be prosecuted? Yeah, and the odds are he would be exonerated because a) rich, b) white, c) good lawyers. This is not the fault of the legal system, but of juries. Can he be prosecuted after Trump leaves office, especially assuming that's in 2020? Probably, depending on the applicable statute of limitations. Is there a better chance of success in that prosecution, then? Probably, especially if
Daddy is being prosecuted for just what Mueller reported (much less the other 12 investigations, which probably involve DJT in some measure).
Should it happen that way? Well, for one thing, no chance then of Daddy pardoning Jr. Or himself, for that matter. (Unless he decides to pardon Jr. pre-emptively on the way out the door. I still think a self-pardon wouldn't stand, but yes, there is a Constitutional infirmity in the broad scope of the pardon power that I don't like).
As for the House approving appointments: that's gonna take a Constitutional amendment. And I don't really see another Gingrich House (or even the last GOP house we just had) making things all that much better on that front. We really have to elect better politicians. I think the analysis that the rise of "populism" is to blame is sound, even if I don't like the use of the word as a pejorative. What we really need are fewer Mitch McConnell's in office, but that's up to the voters, not to the system.