The Left burns down every institution in the pursuit of the chalice of power.
None of this is normal.
“But the Supreme Court has in effect delayed his trial until the fall as it considers the absurd (but no less serious) question of absolute presidential immunity for criminal conduct in office.”
-Jamelle Bouie, NYT political pundit
Jamelle Bouie, formerly the chief political correspondent for Slate and now a political pundit at The New York Times writes a weekly opinion column that follows a tired beaten path. His pieces almost inevitably bring up historical events from the American Civil War and Reconstruction Era, usually as a sort of parallel for the current political kabuki theater on display. This one skips the comparisons, but is no less full of rhetorical flourish and outlandish claims. Bouie seems to lament that former President Trump is not already breaking up rocks at a federal penitentiary.
Last month, a New York state trial court found the former president liable for inflating his net worth and misleading banks and insurers in order to receive favorable loans for his various businesses and commercial enterprises. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, imposed a penalty of $454 million, to be paid into the state’s general fund. Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, gave Trump a 30-day grace period to secure bond as he pursued appeal of the judgment. “If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets,” James said last month.
As of Sunday, Trump did not have the funds lined up. He could not find a company willing to pledge nearly half a billion dollars on his behalf. And even if he could, he would need to pledge at least as much in collateral to the company.
Ideological blinders prevent most from seeing that this is banana republic Kangaroo court action. They went the civil court route because there was no way to prove that a crime actually occurred. Even testimony from the bankers showed that they were happy with the terms of these loans.
Almost any other defendant would have to face the consequences of coming to court empty-handed. It was in a criminal case, yes, but Kalief Browder — arrested at 16 for an alleged robbery — spent three years at Rikers, without trial, because his family could not afford a $3,000 bond. Not Trump. On Monday, the day the money was due, a New York appeals court said that it would accept a far smaller bond of $175 million, a significant and unexpected victory for the former president. He has 10 days to pay.
Only at this point does Mr. Bouie acknowledge that this is a civil trial where the rules of what evidence can be presented are very lenient. Why not bring up Bernie Madoff, who only had to pay a $10 million bond after stealing billions over many years? What is the point of this strawman argument using Kalief Browder? That the criminal justice system makes tragic mistakes? This isn’t news to many.
Consequences for Trump? Ah! Well. Nevertheless.
Although Trump is entitled to an appeal, which he is pursuing, it still feels outrageous that he would get this unexplained courtesy after years of willfully defrauding the public. [Bold added for emphasis] At the same time, it feels typical of Trump’s relationship to the various institutions of American life. If there seems to be a different set of rules for Trump, under which there is always a reason to look the other way or give him a second chance, that’s because for all intents and purposes, there is.
"Willfully defrauding the public." These higher valued properties resulted in higher property taxes for NYC, as well as Florida. Will the state and cities now calculate the overpayments and give taxpayers a check for the difference?
Of course not.
So far, however, Trump has gotten away scot free.[Bold added for emphasis]Yes, he has been indicted in federal cases related to Jan. 6 and his handling of classified documents.
"Trump has gotten away scot free." A NYT pundit says this with a straight face as the power and might of the entire system comes down on Trump. That the current NY state Attorney General, Letitia James explicitly ran a campaign on the promise that she would go after the former president isn’t proof of this to Mr. Bouie. Ms. James took office in 2019, but only brought charges after Trump announced his 2024 election bid. We all know that if he hadn't announced he was running for re-election, none of this would have happened. None.
But the Supreme Court has in effect delayed his trial until the fall as it considers the absurd (but no less serious) question of absolute presidential immunity for criminal conduct in office. [Bold added for emphasis] The judge in the documents case, Aileen Cannon, can’t claim to be tackling a serious constitutional issue. She seems, instead, to be looking for any avenue that allows her to dismiss the charges against the former president, who nominated her to the federal bench in 2020.
It is not an absurd question presented before the Supreme Court. If a president can be charged for actions taken while in office, this in effect will paralyze the decision-making process across a wide swath of government functions, especially in regards to foreign policy and domestic responses to disasters.
A few recent examples:
President Clinton approved sanctions against Iraq that led to famine and 500K preventable deaths for children.
Bush II invading Iraq using false intel of Niger uranium “cake” and WMD.
Bush II handling of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. AKA the “FEMA Fiasco.”
Obama authorizing drone strikes that killed American citizens without due process.
Biden not charged for having unsecured classified documents in his garage.
The list could be endless, but plenty of decisions made by prior (and current) administrations could be fodder for weaponization by politically partisan opposition if SCOTUS agrees that a former president can be charged and prosecuted after leaving office, so no, it isn’t an absurd question.
The point is that there are procedures in place while a president is in office to thwart policy and prosecute for their actions at the time. The “checks and balances” of having three distinct branches of government are in place for this very reason. (Federal courts, 25th Amendment, Impeachment, etc.)
What is striking is the extent to which this shield of impunity has only been strengthened by the political and legal institutions of the United States. First and foremost among these is the Republican Party, which has never wasted a chance to thrust itself between Trump and the consequences of his actions. When it was the “Access Hollywood” tape, Republicans were there for Trump. They were there for him when it was his callous reaction to the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville. They were there for him when he was impeached for trying to coerce the government of Ukraine into supporting his political prospects, and they were there for him when he was impeached for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Mr. Bouie seems aghast that the candidate (and eventual President) of a political party received backing and support from said party. This is basic Politics 101 that you will see this.
That we still have to hear the constant narrative manipulations that can easily be disproved with an internet search of video and transcripts is a sad state of affairs, but no different then attempts by the opposition party to slander the 2024 opponent. Surprising that Mr. Bouie didn’t repeat the canard of “Fine people on both sides” that Charlottesville is famous for thanks to regime media.
The much-vaunted guardrails of the Constitution have not done much to stop Trump, either. As I’ve discussed many times, we have the antiquated rules of the Constitution to thank for his elevation to the White House. And those same rules facilitated his effort to deny the will of the voters and retain his grasp on power.
The Constitution is words written on parchment paper. It does not have magical properties nor can it defend itself or the American people on its own.
The Leftist view American institutions as tools to forward their goals and agenda. Thus, when SCOTUS makes a ruling in their favor, they will trumpet this and treat the decision as sacrosanct. But when it doesn’t the entire legitimacy is questioned – to the point of Obama and Biden scolding the court at State of the Union addresses and angry political pundits like Jamelle Bouie who write screeds against the very existence of a SCOTUS.
But, back to today’s NYT article:
Over the weekend, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz issued a warning to Letitia James that seizing Trump’s properties would put him back in office. “If the New York attorney general starts to take his homes away, starts to seize his assets, it’s all going to be on camera,” he said on CNN. “Pundits are going to sit there and scream about this, ‘This man cannot be elected.’ You’re going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024, and you’re going to elect Donald Trump.”
This is exactly backward. It is the refusal to enforce the rules — enforce the law — against Trump that has put him in a position to win the White House a second time. It is the impunity, as much as if not more than the cultivated sense of victimhood, that anchors his political appeal.
As it stands, we’ll almost certainly be forced to wait on the verdict of the electorate to see if Trump ever answers for his crimes.
Keep in mind that you do not have to be a fan or even a supporter of Donald Trump to be able to see the different set of standards currently being deployed against him, and how that is a danger to the entire faith and allegiance to our political system and institutions.
I almost wish that they would take away Mr. Trump’s properties and show the national public who haven't noticed yet that the country is on the rails to hell.
Ripping the mask off this illusion that things are operating as normal would hopefully make more wake up to the reality that none of this is normal at all.