The Trump Presidency

[JayUtah]

American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.

Indeed.  It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing.  Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria.  Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.

[jfb]

Is it true Trump can wage war in Iran and he can be "by force of law" 4 more years as president?

Oh, God, who’s making that ridiculous claim?  No, it’s not true.  If it were then George W. Bush would have been President through 2011. 

Sure, he can initiate some military misadventure to sandbag the incoming administration (he can't "declare war" as such, but he can do enough for all practical purposes). He can issue all kinds of EOs to cause maximum chaos. He’s still out of a job come Jan 20.  There is no exception for war, pestilence, famine, or the heartbreak of psoriasis. 

Oh, he (or his little troglodyte minions) can spout all kinds of nonsensical claims.  They mean dick-all. 

[raven]

American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.

Indeed.  It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing.  Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria.  Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.

One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"

[jfb]

American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.

Indeed.  It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing.  Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria.  Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.

One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"

None of these suits are meant to win on the merits.  They’re a Bannon-esque PR strategy to flood the zone with bullshit, and they are working far better than they should because civic literacy in the US is now almost non-existent, to where you have people like Josh Hawley describing an outright coup as "defending the Constitution" and people believe him.  Most everyone who voted for Trump are convinced Biden cheated, and the more these suits fail on "mere technicalities" like standing, jurisdiction, laches (a word I learned a couple of weeks ago along with the rest on non-lawyer Twitter), the more they’re convinced it’s a deep state plot.

Then you have the problem that Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are not well people (Wood’s partners have pretty much stated the man suffered some kind of mental break some years ago and is getting worse over time).  Wood’s tweets about Chief Justice Roberts are unhinged, but they are finding an audience.

[Peter B]

American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.

Indeed.  It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing.  Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria.  Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.

One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"

None of these suits are meant to win on the merits.  They’re a Bannon-esque PR strategy to flood the zone with bullshit, and they are working far better than they should because civic literacy in the US is now almost non-existent, to where you have people like Josh Hawley describing an outright coup as "defending the Constitution" and people believe him.  Most everyone who voted for Trump are convinced Biden cheated, and the more these suits fail on "mere technicalities" like standing, jurisdiction, laches (a word I learned a couple of weeks ago along with the rest on non-lawyer Twitter), the more they’re convinced it’s a deep state plot.

Then you have the problem that Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are not well people (Wood’s partners have pretty much stated the man suffered some kind of mental break some years ago and is getting worse over time).  Wood’s tweets about Chief Justice Roberts are unhinged, but they are finding an audience.

Over at UM there are some who think Wood is on to something, and that CJ Roberts's silence is proof of whatever Wood is saying about him. Can you encapsulate what's going on or point me to a website which does?

[jfb]

American democracy limps on, but remember when I said the earlier Texas lawsuit was "the stupidest, most inane and pointlessly divisive piece of political posturing I have ever seen"? This may well, dare I say, Trump it.

Indeed.  It's a straightforward dismissal based on very straightforward principles of Article III standing.  Which is a kind way of saying that, as usual, none of these lawyers seem to know how to file a complaint that passes the simplest gatekeeper criteria.  Once again, dismissed on a "technicality," but really dismissed on the basis that these plaintiffs' attorneys are either desperate for business, incompetent in th extreme, or both.

One might argue it's intentional. After all, if its dismissed on such a 'technicality', they can go trumpet "See, they refused to judge it on its own merits!"

None of these suits are meant to win on the merits.  They’re a Bannon-esque PR strategy to flood the zone with bullshit, and they are working far better than they should because civic literacy in the US is now almost non-existent, to where you have people like Josh Hawley describing an outright coup as "defending the Constitution" and people believe him.  Most everyone who voted for Trump are convinced Biden cheated, and the more these suits fail on "mere technicalities" like standing, jurisdiction, laches (a word I learned a couple of weeks ago along with the rest on non-lawyer Twitter), the more they’re convinced it’s a deep state plot.

Then you have the problem that Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are not well people (Wood’s partners have pretty much stated the man suffered some kind of mental break some years ago and is getting worse over time).  Wood’s tweets about Chief Justice Roberts are unhinged, but they are finding an audience.

Over at UM there are some who think Wood is on to something, and that CJ Roberts's silence is proof of whatever Wood is saying about him. Can you encapsulate what's going on or point me to a website which does?

Wood is claiming that Roberts is a pedophile and had Justice Scalia murdered.  Roberts isn’t responding because Wood is clearly in the midst of a psychotic episode and any response would legitimize the insanity.  Again, Wood’s former partners have gone on the record that Wood has problems and that they’ve been getting worse over time. 

But it’s finding an audience because half of the US is in the midst of a psychotic episode.

The GOP has weaponized mental illness to a degree Scientology only ever dreamed about.

[gillianren]

Which is frankly heartbreaking for the mentally ill who don't fall for these things.  Personally, I feel as though it should shut down any and all involuntary commitment plots for some time to come; if these people's friends and families can't get the committed against their wills . . . .

[Peter B]

And now this...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-04/donald-trump-pushes-georgia-election-official-to-change-results/13029140

"So look, all I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state," Mr Trump said in the recording, insisting that there was "no way" he lost there.

ETA: Is there a transcript of the call that isn't behind a pay wall?

[raven]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
This one seems to be sans paywall. I managed to copy the text and can provide a justpaste.it link if it gives a paywall demand.

[JayUtah]

No paywall for me, but I'm accessing it from a computer that has the appropriate cookies for my Washington Post subscription.

The "find me the votes" quote comes near the end of a rambling speech by the President in which he flat-out accuses the Georgia Secretary of State of committing a criminal act by certifying the vote in spite of the conspiracy theories and rumors that the President recites.  That's in the paragraph that ends with the sentence most often quoted.

That probably qualifies as election tampering under the Georgia criminal code, but it's only a misdemeanor offense.  It's unlikely he would be prosecuted for it.

[JayUtah]

[T]hese suits are...working far better than they should because civic literacy in the US is now almost non-existent, to where you have people like Josh Hawley describing an outright coup as "defending the Constitution" and people believe him.

I have to agree.  Just look at what some people consider their "constitutional right."  In some cases it's just a buzzword that masquerades a particular entitled privilege.  They have a "constitutional right" to free speech, meaning they somehow aren't responsible for the things they say, for example.  Similarly, "the Constitution" becomes more of an abstract rallying cry for some particular kind of activism.  You say you're "defending the Constitution" when you're really just serving some narrow, possibly personal political interest.  A certain amount of that has to be from people who don't know what the Constitution actually says.  But I think it's more a case of dressing up their petty grievances in something that makes it seem more noble.

...laches (a word I learned a couple of weeks ago along with the rest on non-lawyer Twitter)

Our firm's intellectual-property attorney comes by a few times a year (at least in the Before Times) to talk about the relevant principles of IP law.  Laches was part of that.  He's really good at abstracting some pretty difficult case law to explain these things.  He's one of those young, enthusiastic types.  Love the guy.

Wood’s tweets about Chief Justice Roberts are unhinged, but they are finding an audience.

Which is frankly terrifying.  Civics literacy is at rock-bottom, to be sure, but you hope that critical thinking in general hasn't completely gone by the board.  It's terrifying to see evidence that as much as half the people in the United States are so completely susceptible to such freestyle nonsense.

In at least one case, one of the Fox News commentators eluded liability for spreading falsehoods when the ruling came down that a "reasonable person" would believe what was being said.  What's the point of the "reasonable person" standard if we can show that roughly half of all voting-age Americans really do believe such nonsense, and in some cases act upon that belief?

[jfb]

The judges are starting to lose their sense of humor about all this.  This decision in the Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence lawsuit (the one that names the Electoral Freaking College as a defendant) is particularly brutal:

Yet even that may be letting Plaintiffs off the hook too lightly. Their failure to make any effort to serve or formally notify any Defendant — even after reminder by the Court in its Minute Order — renders it difficult to believe that the suit is meant seriously. Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Yee ha.  This is not the first time there's been a call for sanctions, but it's the first time I've seen it come from the judge. 

[JayUtah]

Counsel disregarded the judge's order.  And his reminder.  That's one of the quickest ways I know to earn a judge's ire.

[Jason Thompson]

If ever there was an indication that ignorance of how the system works is rife in the US, I can't think of a better example than the notion that the Vice President has the power to overturn the election results. Do they really believe that an elected official would have the ultimate deciding power over the outcome of an election that determines his own office?!

Couple that with the total lack of shame among some elected officials (I can't remember which it was but one of them tweeted a couple of weeks ago complaining about measures that made it easier for everyone to vote made it harder for Republicans to win, earning him a swathe of 'you said the quiet part out loud' kind of ridicule) and it's no wonder the situation is such a mess.

The voices of that subset of people who think 'the numbers look odd' is the clinching argument rather than the starting point of investigation are getting depressingly loud these days, and the circular logic on display is dizzying (Trump lost because the vote was rigged, and we know the vote was rigged because Trump lost!).

On the plus side I did enjoy Scotland's First Minister utterly ridiculing the suggestion that Trump might visit his golf course in Scotland instead of attending Biden's inauguration yesterday. We're not letting anyone from the US into the UK at all, and we're in lockdown, so Trump can board any plane he likes but it won't be coming here.

[Peter B]

If ever there was an indication that ignorance of how the system works is rife in the US, I can't think of a better example than the notion that the Vice President has the power to overturn the election results. Do they really believe that an elected official would have the ultimate deciding power over the outcome of an election that determines his own office?!

[snip]

I know what you mean. Today I had an exchange like this with someone of whom it might be said of him The Trump Is Strong In Him. (Either that or he's a troll - a truly colossal troll, as he's been promoting ideas like this for years.)

Him: Pence has the power to reject EC votes that are disputed.

Me: Where's this power stated?

Him: The Constitution.

Me: Where in the Constitution?

Him: You look it up.

Me: [quoting references from the Constitution] It doesn't say that anywhere. Did I miss anything?

Him: Yes, you missed the bit where other people, including the President, say he has this power.