11 Comments

Isn't it odd that so many of us can be absolutely (and accurately) aware that "law" is a kind of specific structure for mediating (and concentrating) power, and that it has no special correspondence to justice or democracy and yet we get so profoundly nervous at the thought of using legal structures with something like a consciously political intent? I mean, I fully understand why we hesitate. It's not that we are doing something with law that is unusual--it is used politically all the time, especially by conservatives. It's more like a genre constraint. If you say you're writing a science fiction novel and instead what you seem to have written is a work of autofiction set in 1998 and there's no clever metafictional bridge to explain why your declared intention has been paid off, you tend to get a lot of aggravated readers who think you violated the genre you were aiming at. To do "law" right, you have to appear disinterestedly apolitical. That is, for liberals and even leftists--that is what they expect of the genre. For conservatives, quite the opposite at this point: it's all about the instrumental end and not about the process; they are hoping for 'law' to go by the wayside in favor of executive decree. But they will do that regardless of what is done now in reference to Trump.

Expand full comment

Trump would be a good target for a bill of attainder, if that were allowed.

Expand full comment

Let’s remember here, it’s the National Archives who the Justice Department is representing. The documents belong to them, and for whatever reason Trump was resistant, he’s wrong. End of basic story. Now, if in the course of serving a lawful search warrant, evidence of other crimes is found, tough shit Orange One and all involved. On to next step of which the court procedures are well established.

Fuck ‘em.

Expand full comment

"You come at the king, you best not miss." --Omar Little, "The Wire"

Omar was right. And that's the only thing that gives me pause—the concern that we might miss. Fortunately, I think that Garland understands that. And if Garland thinks he can make a case, he will strike. He cannot, of course, guarantee that twelve jurors will vote to convict. But I think that if he sees the odds as better than even, he will charge the former guy.

Expand full comment

Probably reasonable to argue that it will all be moot if Repubs take both Houses in November. Garland impeached and replaced with a stooge, Biden impeached, all investigations/indictments dropped against Trump on the grounds that they are “political”. Harris lame duck interim president, unless they impeach her too. Meanwhile, Repub state and federal authorities dismantle remnants of regulatory state and proceed with election rigging efforts. By 2024, unless he’s hambourgeoised himself to death by then, Trump can’t lose. Police suppress “violent” protests, because everything Repubs have done is “legal”. Completion of coup d’état.

On the other hand…

Expand full comment

I'll say this. If (when ) Trump gets indicted and bound over for trial, the DOJ or NY state authorities, or the Atlanta DA had better bring their A game to jury selection. I will take only one fact-challenged Trump supporter to hang a conviction jury.

Expand full comment

💣💣💥

Expand full comment

Yes. Fuck it, indeed. Everything here makes me fear that the DOJ will mishandle this however.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment