;)
The Conversation -- December 2, 2023
This Week in History: The first woman Supreme Court Justice died. The GOAT American war criminal died. The House expelled, for the first time, a member who was neither a traitor nor a convicted criminal. And a federal judge ruled for the first time that the POTUS* does not have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.
Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times: "Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the United States Supreme Court, a rancher's daughter who wielded great power over American law from her seat at the center of the court's ideological spectrum, died on Friday in Phoenix. She was 93." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
Clare Foran & Haley Talbot of CNN: "The House voted Friday to expel GOP Rep. George Santos, a historic vote that makes the New York congressman the sixth lawmaker ever to be expelled from the chamber. The vote brings an end to a scandal-plagued and tumultuous tenure on Capitol Hill for the freshman New York congressman.... The resolution passed 311 to 114, with 105 Republicans voting with the overwhelming majority of Democrats in favor of expulsion. Two Democrats voted 'no,' and two Democrats voted present.... 'To hell with this place,' [Santos] said [after the vote]." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Most stories on Santos' expulsion emphasize its "historic" nature. But one reason it's unique is that a number of previous Congressmembers and senators who had been charged but not convicted did not wait for expulsion. (Perhaps because of its messy nature, the stories don't account for the expulsion of Rep. Adam Clayton Powell.) They resigned -- often under pressure from fellow legislators -- if the charges against them were serious and credible. Of course, since they're essentially crooks, others have waited till they're convicted and some have refused to resign altogether.
Nothing Says "Get Out!" Like ~~~
Changing the locks in George Santos former office ... pic.twitter.com/ZpfcnLLTGp
— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) December 1, 2023
~~~ Adeus, Jorge. The New York Times liveblog of the vote to expel George Santos from the House is here. (Also linked yesterday.) See also yesterday's Conversation for some of the entries. ~~~
~~~ CNN's Santos liveblog, also linked yesterday, is here.
Liz Skalka of the Huffington Post:"Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) accused his now-former GOP colleague George Santos of stealing his and his mother's personal credit card information to make illegal contributions to his campaign -- the latest shocking allegation leveled against the indicted ex-New York House member who was expelled from Congress Friday. 'Late yesterday on the floor, I alluded to a personal impact of Rep. Santos' conduct,' Miller wrote in a letter to colleagues Friday morning. 'Earlier this year, I learned that the Santos campaign had charged my personal credit card -- and the personal credit card of my mother -- for contribution amounts that exceeded FEC limits. Neither my mother nor I approved these charges nor were aware of them. We have spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees in the resulting follow-up.'" ~~~
~~~ Marie: A few teevee reporters & commentators opined yesterday that Miller's letter swayed some GOP Congressmembers to switch from "nay" to "yea" on expelling Jorge. That sounds about right: it's fine if a member of Congress scams everybody else, but oh, don't try it on us!
Marie: Quite a few Republicans House members claimed Santos' never-ending lies were just too much, and they voted to expel him because he debased "the dignity of the House," or something like that. Bear in mind that their high dudgeon is as fake as any Trump utterance. The same Congressmen who feign shock, shock at Santos' fables kneel at the feet of the Father of All Fabulists, the Orange Jesus, who himself got his government job based on the laughable fable that he was a brilliant businessman who alone could "fix" the ills of Washington. One Congressman among 435 cannot bring down the House, but a Fat Fascist in the White House can destroy the country. And these House phonies are happy to aid and abet him. ~~~
~~~ Update. I do feel as if [George Santos'] offenses, his fraud, his lies, pale in comparison to the lies and fraud of Donald Trump, whose big lie that he won the presidential election, which he lost by more than seven million votes, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College then led to his incitement of a violent insurrection against the Union. And so all those Republicans who voted to expel Santos should drop their support for Donald Trump immediately, who certainly engaged in far bigger lies than anything Jorge Santos ever attempted. -- Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on MSNBC Friday ~~~
~~~ Luke Broadwater of the New York Times: "With the 118th Congress on pace to pass the fewest bills of any Congress in decades, some House Republicans have begun describing the state of their party as an international embarrassment. Through it all, Mr. Santos has been his own symbol of chaos.... But in the end, it was Republicans' raw political interest that was Mr. Santos's undoing.... Many Republicans ultimately calculated that the clear evidence [laid bare in a scathing Ethics Committee report] of Mr. Santos's lies and fraud was more damaging to the party than the value of his single vote."
A Trumpity Doo-Dah Day
Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong "get-out-of-jail-free' pass.... Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.... Defendant's four-year service as commander in chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. -- Judge Tanya Chutkan, ruling against Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity ~~~
~~~ Alan Feuer of the New York Times: "A federal judge [-- Tanya Chutkan --] on Friday rejected claims by ... Donald J. Trump that he enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal charges accusing him of seeking to reverse the 2020 election, slapping down his argument that the indictment should be tossed out because it was based on actions he took while he was in office.... The former president's lawyers essentially claimed that all the steps he took to subvert the election he lost to President Biden were not crimes, but rather examples of performing his presidential duties to ensure the integrity of a race that he believed had been stolen from him.... [Friday's ruling] offered a sweeping condemnation of what Judge Chutkan called Mr. Trump's attempts to 'usurp the reins of government' and cited foundational American texts like the Federalist Papers and George Washington's farewell address.... The decision by Judge Chutkan was the first time a federal court had ruled that a former president did not enjoy the protections of immunity from criminal prosecution. Then again, Mr. Trump is the only former president to have been charged with any crimes...." Feuer points out that the purpose of the motion really is to delay the trial by filing appeals up to the Supreme Court. ~~~
~~~ The order, via the federal court system, is here.
Rachel Weiner & Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post: "Donald Trump can be held civilly liable for the actions of the mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, an appeals court ruled Friday in a long-awaited decision that could clear the way for lawsuits seeking financial damages from the former president.... Trump and his lawyers have argued that he is protected from both the lawsuit and the criminal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith because of the absolute immunity conferred on a president for anything done as part of his official duties.... [But the judges] compared former presidents to judges, who enjoy protection from lawsuits but are 'subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens.' Trump is 'not above the law,' they wrote.... The unanimous decision by a federal appeals court in Washington is expected to be appealed...." CNN's report, by Katelyn Polantz, is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: The way Lisa Rubin, appearing on MSNBC, explained the rationale behind this order was thus: A president* has immunity for acts he performed in service of his job as president*. But a president is not president 24 hours a day, and acts he performs in some private capacity -- like, say, trying to ensure a second term after he lost an election -- are not protected by presidential immunity. Trump can still argue in the civil case at issue here that the acts he performed to injure the plaintiffs (police officers and members of Congress) were performed as part of his official duties, and it will up to the judge and jury to decide if the facts support his argument. Got that? I paraphrased wildly here, but I think that's the idea.
Catch Me if You Can. Richard Fausset & Danny Hakim of the New York Times: "A lawyer for ... Donald J. Trump argued in an Atlanta courtroom on Friday that putting his client on trial in the final stages of the 2024 presidential contest would be 'the most effective election interference in the history of the United States.' Steven H. Sadow, Mr. Trump's lead lawyer in Georgia, also asserted that if his client were to win the election, Georgia could not try him in the case until after he left the White House again. He cited the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law 'supreme' over contrary state laws. Whether a president would in fact be shielded from prosecution while in office is not a settled legal matter. Mr. Sadow's comments, which were challenged by prosecutors, came during a hearing in the election interference case against Mr. Trump and 14 co-defendants that was brought in August by Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga." Politico's story is here.
Marie: I still think the courts should get over the idea that running for public office supersedes the business of the justice system. Many people have decided not to run for public office because they had other obligations that precluded them from running an effective campaign. Usually those obligations are not "sitting in court because you're under criminal indictment." but the point is that responsibilities have a way of curtailing aspirations. This is also true for people who already hold office. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for instance, had a job way better than president*: (1) it was a lifetime appointment, so no campaigning every four years; and (2) she could (and did) order around the president or even decide who would be president. But when her husband became severely ill and needed her care, O'Connor quit her fabulous day job. Courts should not accommodate Donald Trump's desire to run for re-election any more than they would accommodate your desire to keep your job or go on vacation if you were facing 91 criminal charges.
Jeremy Barr of the Washington Post: "Rupert Murdoch formally handed over the reins of Fox News' parent company in mid-November, but that did not end his legal obligations in the long-running fallout over how the network covered the 2020 presidential election. This week, the 92-year-old media mogul sat for a sworn deposition in the second major defamation lawsuit from an election-technology company that accused Fox of smearing it with false claims of vote rigging.... In recent weeks the Smartmatic case has stirred to life, putting Murdoch's company once again in legal peril."
Orlando Mayorquin of the Washington Post: "An inmate stabbed Derek Chauvin 22 times last week at a federal prison in Tucson, Ariz., the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona said on Friday in announcing attempted murder charges. The inmate, John Turscak, 52, who is accused of stabbing Mr. Chauvin with an improvised knife on Nov. 24, told investigators that he had been thinking about attacking Mr. Chauvin for about a month because Mr. Chauvin ... is a high-profile inmate, according to charging documents. Mr. Chauvin survived the attack."
Worst Debate Moderator Ever. Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: "Fox News billed the clash between [Govs. Gavin Newsom] and [Ron] DeSantis as the 'Great Red vs. Blue State Debate,' a chance to compare the governing philosophies of two prominent governors of large states who could both plausibly be president one day. What we instead got was largely a food fight over relative statistics [Sean] Hannity selected that, almost without fail, put California in a more negative light than Florida. Newsom was repeatedly pressed on the disparities, with the questions framed in unfavorable ways. DeSantis faced difficult questions only from his debate opponent, with Hannity repeatedly tossing him softballs and even volunteering him defenses. A sampling: The first question was about Americans 'leaving blue states in droves in favor of red states.' The second topic began with Hannity asking about how Newsom 'obviously' has a 'philosophy which is higher taxes.' Hannity set up a segment on Florida's so-called 'don't say gay' law by asking DeSantis, 'Should schools be focusing on reading, writing, math, science, history, computers and maybe leaving values ... to the parents?' (This is effectively the talking point DeSantis has long used to justify the law.) Hannity summarized President Biden's approach to illegal immigration during the 2020 campaign as 'Let them come.'" And so on. ~~~
~~~ Now, here's how a real debate goes. In the wake of Henry Kissinger's untimely passing at the age of 100, Daily Show reporters debate: "Who was the greatest American war criminal of all time?" Thanks to RAS for the link:
~~~~~~~~~~
Florida. Gary Fineout of Politico: "A state appeals court on Friday overturned a ruling that declared Gov. Ron DeSantis' congressional map unconstitutional, setting the stage for the legal battle to finally head to the conservative-leaning state Supreme Court. The map pushed by the governor dismantled the North Florida seat of former Rep. Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, and resulted in Republicans gaining four seats that helped the GOP flip the U.S. House during the 2022 midterm elections.... Lawmakers initially planned to preserve Lawson's district until DeSantis objected and contended that the existing district was an illegal race-based gerrymander. The Legislature came back with another map that shifted it eastward around Jacksonville, but still contained a substantial number of Black voters. DeSantis responded by vetoing the map and instead pressured the Legislature to enact one drawn up by his staff."
Florida. Bob Norman of the Florida Trident (Center for Government Accountability): "The sexual battery investigation of Florida GOP chairman Christian Ziegler began with a 911 call from a friend of the alleged victim who was worried about her well-being, according to a recording of the call obtained by the Florida Trident. The 911 call, made on October 4 at 2:46 p.m., reveals the caller was concerned about the mental health of the woman, who isn't being identified due to the nature of the investigation.... A copy of the search warrant involved in the case was released late Friday that substantiated much of the Trident's earlier reporting and added a wealth of new information.... In an interview with detectives attended by his attorney, Christian Ziegler admitted he had sex with [the woman on October 2] but said it was consensual sex.... He also admitted that he shot video of the sex, which he said he initially deleted, but later uploaded to a Google Drive. When the affidavit was filed with the court on November 15, police had yet located the video.... According to the affidavit, Bridget Ziegler told detectives she was involved in a sexual encounter with her husband and the woman once over a year ago. News of the criminal investigation led [Gov. Ron] DeSantis to publicly call for Ziegler to step down from his role at the top of Florida's Republican Party...."
Texas. Andrew Zhang of Politico: "A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Texas must remove a series of buoys in its river border with Mexico that had generated a wave of backlash from immigration advocates and Democratic lawmakers. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Texas' request to overrule a federal district judge, who ordered the state in September to remove the controversial barrier. Judge Dana Douglas, an appointee of President Joe Biden, wrote in the panel's majority opinion that the district judge had appropriately 'considered the threat to navigation and federal government operations on the Rio Grande, as well as the potential threat to human life the floating barrier created.'"
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine
The Washington Post's live updates of developments in the Israel/Hamas war are here: "Israel ramped up airstrikes on Gaza, and directed residents to evacuate some neighborhoods, after a seven-day pause in hostilities ended and fighting resumed with Hamas. The Israeli military said Saturday it had hit hundreds of targets and was 'preparing for the next stage -- southern Gaza,' adding that warplanes had hit over 50 targets in the Khan Younis area there.... At least 193 people were killed and 652 injured in Gaza after fighting resumed between Israel and Hamas, the Gaza Health Ministry said Saturday. Earlier, Israel's military said it had hit more than 400 targets in Gaza over the previous day -- bringing the level of military activity back to pre-pause levels. The Israel Defense Forces called on residents in parts of north and southern Gaza to evacuate. The United Nations has criticized a numbered 'evacuation zone map' issued by the IDF, saying it 'does not specify where people should evacuate to' and may not be seen by Gaza residents given the regular electricity and communications blackouts." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Israel is treating these evacuations orders like a game of musical chairs -- only the Israelis pull many chairs, not just one, during each round of the game, and the penalty for not grabbing a chair is death. ~~~
~~~ CNN's live updates for Saturday are here.
Anthony Faiola, et al., of the Washington Post: "As bombs fell and tanks penetrated deep into Gaza in late October, Israeli President Isaac Herzog held a fraught phone call with Pope Francis. The Israeli head of state was describing his nation's horror over the Hamas attack on Oct. 7 when the pope issued a blunt rejoinder. It is 'forbidden to respond to terror with terror,' Francis said, according to a senior Israeli official familiar with the call.... Herzog protested.... The pope continued, saying those responsible should indeed be held accountable, but not civilians.... On Nov. 22, in the hours before his general audience and 'terrorism' comment, Francis held two emotional meetings: one with relatives of people killed in Gaza and the other with families of hostages taken by Hamas. In the session with the Palestinians, the pope wept as they spoke of the massive death toll, said Shireen Hilal, a professor who lost two family members. She and others in attendance said Francis used the word 'genocide' in English."
Share Article
Reader Comments (16)
The Times piece on POS Santos concludes:
“Many Republicans ultimately calculated that the clear evidence [laid bare in a scathing Ethics Committee report] of Mr. Santos’s lies and fraud was more damaging to the party than the value of his single vote.”
Have no doubt, however, that were that single vote required for Party of Traitors dominance in the House, Kitara wouldn’t be standing at his office door wondering why his key doesn’t work anymore. Santos’s ouster had far more to do with PoT hacks not wanting to continue looking like shitheads than any respect for ethical behavior.
Gigantic sighs of relief all around that Fatty’s claim of total, impenetrable, unquestioned, and eternal immunity has been debunked.
NOW the big question is…when (and if—still a huge uncertainty) he’s found guilty, will he be sent to prison just like any other asshole, or will he get some bullshit “Three days home confinement” sentence?
It’s great to hear that he can be held accountable for his crimes, but I’d like to know WILL he?
Are the conditions of Trumps parole a matter of public record.? There don't seem to be any travel restrictions and I seem to remember that he didn't have to surrender his passport. I'm just curious to know what he agreed to forgo in exchange for being free to campaign and incite his cult followers.
@Bobby Lee: The answer is yes. Parole conditions are public record. For instance, here they are in the documents case, and here are the restrictions in the Fulton County case.
Republicans will start screeching in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... but this is good news for those of us who care about climate change:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/climate/biden-social-cost-carbon-climate-change.html
I get the distinction Judge Chutkan makes between a president's presumed immunity for duties performed as president and (tho' she doesn't say it that way) those he or she might perform as a politician, but that difference seems a bit squishy to me, the lines of demarcation between president and politician a little too hard to see.
For one thing, a president, any public figure in fact, is always a politician to the degree that awareness of how what one does might play is always present and often influences what he or she does. If we define political success as election or re-election, for a successful politician, it can be no other way.
Of course, we do expect more of our leaders than their necessary political selves. We expect them to articulate and act on some set of ideals and behaviors. When sensitivity to the vagaries of public sentiment prompt too much and too obvious deviation from those values and behaviors, we use the word "political" in another, negative sense, as it he or she is just being a "politician."
But however we mean the word, politics is always in one way or another present in a public figure's life. It's even fair to say, that once-elected or appointed, a politician is always running for office. It's not just the public appearances, the decisions, the triangulation, and the fund-raising. It's everything the politician does. So is all that, even the attention devoted to re-election, part of his or her "duties" or not?
I think a case can be made that playing politics is very much part of a politician's duties even for those elected, their attempts to remain in office.
With that in mind, we'd be well served to look for the distinction we need in another place. Were the politician's actions legal or not? Did the politician break the law? Would his or her behavior be judged illegal if any non-president had done it.
If so, the heck with the magic cloak of immunity. It's no more than a distraction. A legal will o' the wisp. Get rid of it.
@Ken Winkes: I agree that the line is "squishy," and every President (or president*) has dealt with it differently. Barack Obama was very careful not to make overtly political statements in his "official" speeches; it used to drive me crazy when, in the course of an "official" speech, he said, "some in Congress are lamebrains" when he meant "Republicans are lamebrains." Most other presidents have observed some kind of line, but not so carefully as Obama did.
It seems obvious that if Trump "shot somebody on Fifth Avenue" while he was president*, that would not be an official act for which he would have immunity from prosecution. But urging armed supporters to march on the Capitol & providing them with a specific target -- mike pence -- might be obviously outside his duties to me but not to others.
Moreover, it seems to me a president* could engage in criminal, not-covered, conduct during the course of a clearly official act. For instance, Trump could say during a SOTU address (which is mandated in the Constitution) that the marshals must immediately round up all the Democrats in the room and throw them in jail for treason.
The Appellate Court leaves it up to the judge and jury to decide. They say that the plaintiffs will have to prove -- to a civil standard -- that Trump was acting outside of his official duties when he incited the January 6 riot in which they claim damages. If the plaintiffs win, then their premise is "proved." But Trump can argue in rebuttal that his actions and remarks were part of his official duties so covered by presidential immunity, and the court and/or jury can find him not liable because he has immunity. IOW, the appellate judges are leaving it up to the deciders in the case-in-chief to determine whether or not Trump acted within the parameters of his presidential duties.
When Nixon said, "When the president does it, it's not illegal," he was wrong. That's up to the judicial system to determine. And perhaps on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you Miz Marie. Quite interesting and two things come across. First is that Fulton County came down a lot harder that the Southern District of Florida. The second being there must be a requirement for signatures for Trump lawyers be illegible.
The Pretenders' list of pardons constitute a veritable Rogues' Gallery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/trump-pardon-power-2024-benefit/
Complete with pictures.
There's so much for a nation to be proud of here.
A reset button. That's what Republican politicians need.
Our internet slowed down to a crawl the last few days, and I not
being a techie, asked a younger person (isn't everyone) for suggestions
as to what to do.
Says he, do the reset button on your moden/router, so I did that and
everything is now up to speed.
So that's what Republican politicians need. A reset button to get them
to do what they were elected to do. Just do something.
I'd suggest that reset button be put up their a***s so anyone who
voted for them could give a boot to their a**.
Thanks all for the above conversation about presidential immunity. It's not been clear to me before why prosecutors have attempted so zealously to ascertain whether Trump was delusional in his claims that he actually won the election or he was fully aware that the election had gone against him but that, in his mind at least, he still had some options to thwart the popular will because how could any voter in his or her right mind not want the Orange Genius to continue as President?
So, every assertion that's gone on record from those in the White House bunker from the election to January 6 that quotes Trump as knowing that he lost is gold. It's unlikely that any time before the next election his defense lawyers will utter the word "insane," but I would imagine such a defense would loom large around, say, December 2024, if Trump loses again.
However, should that defense be chosen, I would expect at least a few civil plaintiffs to add Mike Pence to the list of bad guys sued because he knowingly allowed an insane person to continue barking orders while careening off the ketchup-stained walls of the Oval Office. What exactly was Mike's Christian duty when confronted with a dilemma that pitted his ambition against his professed and often flaunted values?
CNN
"Trump’s avalanche of dishonesty: Fact-checking 102 of his false claims from this fall"
Tom Sullivan
"Down the algorithmic rabbit hole
There is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, someone who lives in the real world but also has questions about the moon landing, and on the other, a person who believes the Covid vaccine is responsible for a vast number of American deaths and Jan. 6 was an inside job and the American elite is trying to replace the electorate with new immigrant voters and the 2020 election was rigged and Donald Trump is God’s divine choice to save America.
Such individuals don’t simply believe in a conspiracy theory, or theories. They live in a “bespoke reality.” That brilliant term comes from my friend Renée DiResta, the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, and it refers to the effects of what DiResta calls a “Cambrian explosion of bubble realities,” communities “that operate with their own norms, media, trusted authorities and frameworks of facts.”"
“foundation of my life.”
"On Jan. 8, 2019, DeSantis stood onstage at Florida’s historic Capitol next to his wife, Casey, who had in her hand a King James Bible. He was set to officially become Florida’s 46th governor. Many elected officials choose to be sworn into office on a religious text with some sort of personal meaning.
But for DeSantis, this moment was preceded by scrambling by campaign and inauguration staffers caught off-guard when DeSantis, who is Catholic, told them his family did not own a Bible and he did not care whether he used one with historical significance, five former aides said.
Staff members for DeSantis had to buy a Bible for $21.74 on Amazon and have it shipped to the Republican Party of Florida headquarters less than a week before his inauguration, according to a receipt of the transaction shared with NBC News."
https://abc7ny.com/george-santos-social-media-ethics-committee-x-posts/14132429/
Santos really is a mini-Pretender in all his shamelessness and stupidity.
As he refuses to accept his campaign is heading to sleep with the fishes, Ron DeSantis reveals plans for education once he is elected.https://floridapolitics.com/archives/646732-ron-desantis-reforming-universities/