SATURDAY: Is "our democracy" in peril?

SATURDAY, MAY 14, 2022

It has been for a long time:  With apologies, we didn't do a very good job explaining our argument yesterday. 

We were discussing the perils involved in the possibility of charging Donald J. Trump (and an array of lesser GOP figures) with a series of crimes. 

Should Donald J. Trump be charged with a crime? We can't answer that question.

For starters, we don't know if he has actually committed a crime. Also, we don't know if he has committed a type of crime which can be described to the wider public in a way the wider public will understand.

Some types of crime are quite clearcut. You can't steal someone's wallet or purse. You can't shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. 

Other crimes (and constitutional rulings) involve layers of complexification which are very hard to explain—and which may not even make sense. It may be especially hard to explain such matters to the general public when deeply felt policy views, or deeply held political loyalties, are involved.

Criminal charges of that type would generate major backlash. Perhaps such charges should be brought, but this is a tricky and dangerous time.

On Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace's "favorite reporters and friends" have been walking the "criminalization" road all through these Trump and post-Trump years. They've been trying to address a serious political problem—How can we persuade people to vote against Donald J. Trump?—by means of criminalization.

For years, they've been asking this question: How we can get Trump locked up? More recently, they've even been asking this related question:

How can we get the candidates we don't like removed from the ballot?

Yesterday, Wallace joined Max Boot in worrying about the fate of "our democracy." In fact, our democracy has been on life support for decades, dating back—let's recall one of the most ridiculous episodes—to the time when the mainstream press corps had a collective nervous breakdown over the fact that a certain candidate for president was wearing three-button suits.

That was an undisguised lunacy of the mainstream press. The mainstream press is a major part of "our democracy"—and we've been detailing such lunacies for the past twenty-four years. 

In many respects, "our democracy" has been a tightly-scripted clown show dating at least to 1992. People like Wallace and Boot are never going to tell you that. Neither will the other stars of our own tribe's "corporate cable."

For now, just consider the functioning of "our democracy" and those three-button suits:

In the fall of 1999, two experienced Democratic candidates—Senator Bradley and Vice President Gore—conducted a debate which focused on American health care. It was the first Democratic debate of the 2000 campaign. 

At the conservative National Review, the late Kate O'Beirne praised the candidates for their breadth of  knowledge. At the Washington Post, Pulitzer winner Mary McGrory started her column as shown:

MCGRORY (10/31/99): Vice President Albert Gore came to his fateful encounter with newly menacing challenger Bill Bradley carrying heavy baggage. He was wearing an outfit that added to his problems when he stepped onstage at Dartmouth College: a brown suit, a gunmetal blue shirt, a red tie—and black boots.

Was it part of his reinvention strategy? Perhaps it was meant to be a ground-leveling statement—"I am not a well-dressed man." It is hard to imagine that he thought to ingratiate himself with the nation's earliest primary voters by trying to look like someone seeking employment at a country music radio station. 

McGrory barely mentioned what the candidates had said about health care. Instead, she lambasted Gore's deeply troubling wardrobe, in this and in her next column.

Everyone treated this lunacy as normal. Within "our democracy," things spiraled downward from there, with major mainstream journalists conducting lunatic discussions of every conceivable aspect of Gore's deeply troubling wardrobe.

That included the fact that some of his deeply troubling suit jackets had three buttons, not two. Eventually, one major national figure even sewed a fourth button on!

No, we aren't making that up—and the lunacy came to be even more lunatic than whatever you may be imagining. That was the state of "our democracy" as of the fall of 1999, and all the people our tribe admires knew that they had two choices:

They could play along with this jihad if they chose. But they mustn't notice or mention the lunacy, and they certainly mustn't complain.

Wallace herself has long been part of the threat to "our democracy," dating back to 2004, when she was pimping state ballot measures on same-sex marriage to enhance voter turnout for Bush. That said, "our democracy" has been a joke for decades—but you will never be told such things as corporate cable sells product.

We hope to do better again at this site starting on Monday. According to a string of experts, it won't make a lick of difference. But we'll be trying to find ways to get our time and our focus back.

Should Donald J. Trump be charged with a crime? On the merits, we have no idea. On the politics, it strikes us a very risky maneuver.

That said, people like Wallace are busy earning millions of dollars selling "cable news" product. You should never trust their judgment or their factual statements or the pleasing product they sell.

First three buttons, then four: Within the realm of the fourth estate, "our democracy" was a manifest joke as of the fall of 1999.

The conduct of the mainstream press was crazier than you think. "Our democracy" has been a form of lunacy for decades, and that isn't likely to change. 

To consider the troubling number of buttons on that one candidate's suits, you can just click here. This was the state of "our democracy" as of 1999—and you can trust us on this point:

What you find, if you click that link, will be crazier than you think. None of our blue tribe's exalted leaders said even a word in real time. 


34 comments:

  1. "Criminal charges of that type would generate major backlash."

    But, dear Bob, it might also generate a feeling of hopelessness, apathy, and despair.

    ...which is the only way your tribe's "democracy" can flourish.

    So cheer up, dear Bob. It just may work out fine for your tribe in the end...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "They've been trying to address a serious political problem—How can we persuade people to vote against Donald J. Trump?—by means of criminalization.

    For years, they've been asking this question: How we can get Trump locked up? More recently, they've even been asking this related question:
    How can we get the candidates we don't like removed from the ballot?"

    This is a very serious charge that Somerby is making against the mainstream press.

    I take strong issue with it. The purpose of the press is to report news, not to advocate voting for or against any candidate. In this case, I think Somerby may be confusing the editorials and opinion pieces that appear in news media with reporting. Reporters don't advocate for candidates. Pundits and those interviewed by reporters may do so. Somerby needs to maintain the distinction between these roles, so that he doesn't imagine that when someone being interviewed says "Don't vote for Trump" that they are speaking for the media.

    If Somerby does understand this, then he has crossed a line with the false accusation, lie, that the media has been pushing candidates by calling for Trump to be investigated and held accountable for his actions. Beyond that, I know of no instance when the media has tried to have someone removed for the ballot for being Republican. There has been coverage of the attempts by citizens to remove those Republicans from ballots who have been involved in the insurrection, in accordance with our laws.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It may be especially hard to explain such matters to the general public when deeply felt policy views, or deeply held political loyalties, are involved."

    If Trump and his accomplices are investigated and found guilty of crimes, the citizenry does not vote on whether he is guilty, they do not ratify his conviction. The case if finished when he is convicted. The Trump supporters and MAGA-crowd do not have to approve. They don't get to decide what happens to him.

    Threats of further violence cannot be allowed to prevent people like Trump from being held accountable under the law. It is enormously foolish for Somerby to imply that there must be special treatment for those cherished by the Q-Anons and MAGATs because they will be unhappy when Dear Leader goes to jail.

    It is astonishing that Somerby should be arguing today that the rule of law must be subverted because the deplorables won't understand Trump's crimes, if they are complicated. There is precedent for conviction of many criminals who were engaged in complex crimes, regardless of the dismay of their supporters. We don't only convict those who have committed simple, obvious crimes. White collar criminals such as Trump can and should go to jail if they are guilty, and if that precludes them from running for office again, more power to our justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Should Donald J. Trump be charged with a crime? On the merits, we have no idea. On the politics, it strikes us a very risky maneuver."

    Somerby insists on considering the prosecution of Trump and his accomplices as a political act. It is not. It is an act of justice carried out by our government in service to the common good. It is not good for the welfare of our country and its people to allow criminals to flourish without being stopped. THAT is what this is about. NOT politics. Somerby thinks Democrats are against Trump because he is Trump. That is only partially true. We are also against Trump because he is a liar and thief who has endangered our nation and needlessly killed people by his failure to carry out the duties of his office. He has broken many laws. It is time for him to be held accountable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To convict Trump, or anyone else of a crime, the prosecution needs to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he is guilty of a crime - either violation of a criminal statue or a common law crime. anon 12:44, you allege Trump has "broken many laws." Which ones? You do claim he is a "liar" but that is not generally criminal. You claim he is a "thief." What did he steal? You say he "endangered our nation? What specific acts did he take that "endangered our nation" and what specific laws did he violate in doing so? You also accuse him of "needlessly" killing people? Who did he kill, "needlessly" or otherwise? can you name some legal precedents for charging him with some of these crimes? Which duties of his office did he fail to carry out that led to getting people needlessly killed? I agree that if evidence and the law solidly support charging Trump with some type of crime, prosecution would be justified, but he is a former president, and it could open a can of worms, so I don't think it should be based on stretching and reaching for grounds to do it. And I can't help thinking your desire for it to happen is politically motivated.

      Delete
    2. It may be that in some metaphysical realm prosecuting Trump is purely an act of justice. But in this world in which we live, it is undeniable it will be viewed, and acted upon, as if it is political.

      Delete
    3. He sold pardons for cash. He engaged in bribery and tax evasion. He planned and participated in an insurrection. He kept gifts he was not permitted to retain. He mishandled classified documents. He colluded with a foreign nation to subvert an election. He assaulted 27 women. He turned a blind eye to grifting by appointees, which makes him an accomplice. He was involved in a plot to submit fake elector lists represented as official documents. He failed to divest businesses in which he had a financial conflict of interest permitting foreign interests to channel funds to them. And there is more…

      Delete
    4. I argue for keeping these 2 questions distinct:

      1. does Trump deserve punishment?
      2. what would be the effect of an attempt at punishment (particularly if it resulted in acquittal)?

      As sleazy as Trump is, I don’t think there’s a slam-dunk conviction in any of the misdeeds you listed--the partial proof being he hasn't yet been charged anywhere for any of them. An acquittal at this juncture would strengthen the MAGA world’s penchant to portray him as a persecuted innocent.

      We’d all like to see Trump in ankle restraints. But “when you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

      Delete
    5. One effect of acquitting Trump or failing to charge him at all would be to demonstrate that there is no justice in this country, that the rich can do whatever they want, that our government is not serious and our leaders have no integrity. It would further erode faith in our institutions on the left, where there has been some remaining idealism. More people will consider working outside the system to achieve change.

      I'd like to think that there would be more people in the street, but it may just make more people cynical and that can lead to much more serious problems for those who do not want to live in a fascist country.

      Meanwhile, I think that this question is being raised as a form of coercion, blackmail, to convince authorities not to move against Trump under threat of civil disorder. They have been doing this all along. Such threats shouldn't keep justice from being done.

      Delete
    6. a form of coercion, blackmail, to convince authorities not to move against Trump under threat of civil disorder.

      That's exactly what it is. Which makes the prosecution of that gangster even more imperative if we want to survive as a free country.

      Delete
    7. anon 6:20 - that's certainly a list of alleged crimes, with a lot of conclusory allegations. The alleged assaults on 27 women - I assume statute of limitations issues. A "blind eye" to grifting appointees, making him an "accomplice?" - do you have any idea what it would take to convict somebody on that basis? Your whole list doesn't seem a strong, practical basis for criminal prosecution. No slam dunks. The whole "lock up" Clinton over her emails thing was bogus (abetted by the so-called liberal media) and a lot of the lock up Trump mania is in the same category (e.g., colluding with a foreign nation to subvert an election). TDH''s take on this is quite reasonable.

      Delete
    8. Forget the pressure on GA to find 11,000 votes, with recording of the call.

      Delete
    9. There are at least 10 counts of obstruction of justice and witness tampering outlined in Volume 2 of the Mueller report, committed by the gangster in broad daylight. Slam dunk. Put it in front of a jury.

      Delete
  5. It is a major false equivalency to think that calling for Trump's prosecution for criminal acts is the same as ridiculing Gore for wearing three-button suits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is what Somerby has written. Note the juxtaposition:

      "Should Donald J. Trump be charged with a crime? On the merits, we have no idea. On the politics, it strikes us a very risky maneuver.

      That said, people like Wallace are busy earning millions of dollars selling "cable news" product. You should never trust their judgment or their factual statements or the pleasing product they sell.

      First three buttons, then four: Within the realm of the fourth estate, "our democracy" was a manifest joke as of the fall of 1999.

      The conduct of the mainstream press was crazier than you think. "Our democracy" has been a form of lunacy for decades, and that isn't likely to change. "

      Delete
  6. We failed to charge Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush family with crimes, so that enabled all the Trumps of the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello!
      You have been chosen at random to participate in our survey.
      Please answer this question:
      If you find yourself in a crowded elevator and you suddenly realize an offending odor, do you:
      A) do your best to maintain your composure and say nothing
      B) deny any and all involvement in the production of the offending odor
      C) blame it on the person to your left
      D) claim complete responsibility for its production, even if you didn't produce it!
      If you chose option D, then you should check out my favorite site: www.fartblog.com. You will be most pleased.
      Thank you for your participation,
      Fanny Manners

      Delete
  7. “They've been trying to address a serious political problem—How can we persuade people to vote against Donald J. Trump?—by means of criminalization.”

    That isn’t necessarily the case. They may quite simply feel that Trump has committed serious offenses and should be held accountable.

    Besides, Somerby kept criticizing them (ie the media) for not talking about Trump’s (alleged) mental illness. Was that Somerby’s way of trying to persuade people not to vote for Trump??

    Somerby would always conclude that Trump deserved pity and that he couldn’t be held accountable for any misdeeds because his mental illness prevented him from knowing what he was doing.

    And then he would throw in his usual complaint that “liberals” just want to throw The Others in jail, as if “liberals” were only engaged in partisan score-settling when they ask that high-placed Republican lawbreakers be held legally accountable.

    Today, he is complaining about the media doing this, but he just as often goes after “liberals.” Look back at his criticisms of the Democrats’ efforts to impeach and convict Trump.

    Somerby also quoted a non-media figure the other day, Eric Holder, who is described as a cautious “institutionalist” and who is now saying there is sufficient evidence and reason to prosecute Trump, so it isn’t just the media discussing this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One thing that is constantly irritating is that liberals constantly get blamed, not just for their own failures, but also for the failures of others. (Somerby engages in this too).

    It was quite revealing to hear the private conversations of Republicans immediately after January 6. It shows that they held Trump responsible for what was going on that day. But the Republican party showed absolutely zero leadership in trying to work with Democrats to get rid of Trump. And without that help, it was always going to be impossible for the Democrats to get rid of Trump. And so now the Democrats, as always, are left to clean up that mess with no help from the goddamned Republicans.

    Look at the difference between now and 1973. Back then, Republican Party leaders were poised to impeach Nixon and they asked him to resign. How far their party has sunk, into a party of demagogues and moral cowards.

    In a two-party system, in which the GOP hold a great deal of power, it is on them to be leaders, and prevent the rise of people like Trump in their party. That is why I partially reject the idea that they should be viewed as victims. They need to keep their own house in order, and if they’re unwilling to do that, they should not exist as a party and certainly not hold power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All politicians are scumbags, dear mh.
      There are very few exception; Ds get rid of them immediately (see Gabbard, Tulsi), but Rs don't (see Paul, Rand).

      As for Rs not always acting quite as shitty as your tribe's pols, it's understandable: they need votes of normal ordinary humyn beings. And that's all there is to it, dead mh.

      Delete
    2. They impeached Trump, and sent it to the Senate to convict. They needed just 10 Republicans to do so. There was a slight chance you could find 10 Republicans who believe treason against the United States is problematic, but there was no way all of them would be U.S. Senators.

      Delete
    3. Actually, they did not one but two bullshit impeachments.

      Which means that if the other team follows suit, then from now on every US president will be impeached multiple times.

      Great, we don't mind. The more the merrier.

      ...unless, which seems likely, the establishment will take it under control... Tsk. Oh well.

      Delete
    4. Impeachment is a legitimate constitutional tool included by the framers to be used in appropriate and necessary circumstances. It is yet another facet of government that the GOP have successfully politicized, starting with their bullshit impeachment of Clinton.

      No President has more deserved impeachment than Trump, but because the GOP are a clown posse, we can expect them (along with Somerby) to view impeachment merely as a political weapon and to make a farce of that and their oaths to protect the constitution.

      Delete
    5. Mao says: "And that's all there is to it, dead mh."

      Freudian slip?

      Delete
    6. We appreciate your attentive proofreading, dear dembot.

      Delete
  9. "Hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country are marching the bans off of our bodies protest that cable news has largely ignored."

    Will Somerby complain about this? I wouldn't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "A teenage gunman espousing a white supremacist ideology known as replacement theory opened fire at a supermarket in Buffalo on Saturday, methodically shooting and killing 10 people and injuring three more, almost all of them Black, in one of the deadliest racist massacres in recent American history."

    He apparently drove 200 miles with his gun to commit this shooting. No doubt Somerby will support this kid's self-defense plea and argue that the young do foolish things so he shouldn't be charged with anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Other likely reactions from Somerby: 1) It wasn’t racially motivated because two white people were killed. 2) The shooter was mentally ill. Don’t liberals believe in mental illness anymore?

      Delete
    2. mh, your comment shows how you are tilted toward partiality. From the reports, it seems clear that this was a racist attack - the apparent perpetrator admits that was his motive. That he killed two whites shows what? maybe he was somewhat indiscriminate in who he shot - but the initial evidence seems clear, he was motivated by what can reasonably be characterized as 'racism.' Was he "mentally ill." Certainly, it wouldn't be beyond the pale to suggest that anyone who commits this type of crime is mentally sick; it seems very unlikely that the perp will succeed on an insanity defense in these circumstances, however. Will TDH 'probably' say this was not racially motivated because 2 victims were 'white?" I doubt it, though we'll see. Why is it that you jump to this conclusion? What's the take away from this incident, over and above the fact that this one sicko committed these acts? that's where the politics comes in, legitimate to one degree or another. How many and who can be blamed for what happened who didn't commit the act?

      Delete
    3. My takeaway is not up for discussion here. Option #3: Somerby never mentions it.

      Delete
  11. "About 60 percent of the extremist murders committed in the United States between 2009 and 2019 were committed by people espousing white supremacist ideologies like the replacement theory, the Anti-Defamation League found.

    “It is the most mass-violence-inspiring idea in white supremacist circles right now,” said Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. “This particular idea has superseded almost everything else in white supremacist circles to become the unifying idea across borders.”

    Yet Somerby was only last month excusing Tucker Carlson, who has been pushing replacement theory on Fox News, as an "excitable boy" who suffered child abuse because his wealthy father provided for him in luxury after his mother left the family. As if that excused Carlson's racist behavior, stoking and abetting the White Nationalist movement that has produced these sorts of mass killings and attacks on diverse people.

    Somerby should be ashamed of himself. Will he call this 18 year old an "excitable boy" too? Of course he will. How better to own the libs here?

    ReplyDelete
  12. That the nature of Trump's "disordered" thinking is
    a penchant for accusing others of lawlessness with no
    foundation, while at the same time ignoring his own
    rancid, perhaps illegal behavior was apparent from the
    outset. The chants of "lock her up" never troubled
    Bob, but the opposite, however an invention of his own
    mind, are DEEPLY troubling
    That there might be a price for ignoring Trump's lawlessness would seem never to occur to Bob. Should
    the Dem's hold their next convention in the
    White House would that snap him out of it? Would
    he ever try to make a case that Trump's grotesque
    election tampering in Georgia was legal or will he in
    all things give the right a "mulligan", like The former
    President cheating on the golf course?
    Bob is a doddering idiot. A bully who invariably
    sides with other bullies. His lazy, immaterial Frost
    quote really illustrates how much thought HE has given
    these issues.
    Mao helps here. THAT is who Bob would surrender
    any national honor we have left to.

    ReplyDelete