 |
| Nutty Tennessee Dem's proudly showcase their gender fluidity ideology with every communication. |
I will await the first email from the new chair (chairman, chairwomen, chair). Outgoing Chair Hendrel Remas always had to end his emails with a "he/him" until about March of last year when he suddenly stopped the practice. There was never an explanation of why he stopped with the gender identification, it just suddenly stopped.
There are a lot reasons Democrats lost to Trump in the recent election. Considering Trump is an authoritarian, is cruel, mocking, rude, constantly lies, and attempted a coup, Dems should have won easily. I know that immigration and the economy are the reasons most often attributed to a Trump win, but I think it was due to wokeness, and all that goes with it.
 |
| Two days in a row, the Tennessee Democratic Party sent me an email without stating the sender's preferred pronoun. |
In some of the post-mortems, I have seen a few Democrats, not many- but a few, identify this wokeness and related issues as a factor in their loss. While I still consider myself a Republican, I cannot be part of the Trump cult. I wish there was an alternative I could embrace. I think we need two viable political parties, so when one becomes a cult, there is an alternative. Unfortunately, if Democrats remain in this out-of-touch, elitist. snobbish, self-righteous mode, I think the Trump cult will continue to win. I don't think the politically correct identity fluidity ideology cult can trump the Trump cult.
I am looking forward to my first email from Rachel Campbell.
 |
| Rep. Andy Ogles |
Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first person to serve more than two terms. Up until then it was a norm that no one serve more than two terms but not a law. A few had considered it and a few tried it, Teddy Rosevelt being the most prominent. Teddy attempted a third term but was unsuccessful. After FDR was elected to an unprecedented four terms in a row, especially after he died not long into his fourth term the public supported restricting a president to two terms. Congress created what is now the 22nd Amendment restricting a president to two terms and it was ratified by the States. Now Andy Ogles wants to make changes to the 22nd.
The Constitutional amendment Ogles is proposing is drafted in such a way to only apply to a situation like that of Trump's. It would not simply allow for a president to serve more than two terms. So, while Trump could serve a third term, should Ogles' amendment pass, it would not open the door for an Obama or Clinton to seek a third term.
Passing such an amendment will take some effort. First of all, a proposed amendment would have to pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds vote. Republicans only have a three-vote margin in the House and hold only 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate. There is no way an amendment to allow Trump to run for a third term could get a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. If by some miracle it did, then it would be sent to the states to be ratified and would have to be approved by 38 of the states.
Trump only won 31 states in the recent election. Having won the state in a presidential election does not mean that state will necessarily ratify an amendment giving President Trump the right to seek a third term. To be ratified, the governor of the state submits the amendment to the state legislature for its consideration or convenes a state ratifying convention. In many of these states, the legislature is not dominated by Republicans and the governors of these states are not all Republicans. Also, should a governor attempt to go the ratifying convention route, it would be difficult to motivate low-information voters to turn out to vote for convention delegates. I would put the chance of this proposal by Ogles leading to a Constitutional amendment at almost zero. I don't believe the House, Senate, States or the American people would support it. I don't think even the majority of people who voted for Trump would support it.
Some in Trump world have been hinting that Trump may serve a third term. That would require amending the Constitution or circumventing it. I don't think Trump would have any qualms about subverting or suspending the Constitution to serve a third term. After all, in 2020 he attempted to stay in office despite losing the election and he has publicly stated that at times it may be necessary to suspend the Constitution.
While I don't think Trump would have any qualms about subverting the Constitution to stay in office, I am not very worried about it. If he attempts it, I won't be shocked, however. There is not much Trump could do that would shock me. I am not too concerned about Trump seeking to stay in office past this term, simply because he is old. On January 20, 2029, he will be 82 years old if he is still living. I doubt he will want a third term at that age. He may want to retire and play golf. Also, I suspect that Americans will be sick of him by then and will want to make America normal again. I suspect that Trump is at his most popular now and expect his popularity to decline. In four years, I don't expect there to be a groundswell of public support for Trump, demanding he be given a third term.
So why is Ogles doing this? Maybe there is some grand strategy to plant the seed in the public's mind of Trump serving a third term, so that if Trump does decide to stay in office after the end of this term and Trump does declare a national emergency and suspend the next election, that the public will already have been softened up to the possibility of Trump staying in office past the end of this term. I think that may be a possibility, but I don't think so. I think this is simply Ogles trying to curry favor with Trump. I think it is simply Ogles trying to be the number one suck up.
Below is the press release from Ogles office announcing his resolution to amend the Constitution to allow Trump to serve a third term.
Press Release from Andy Ogles, January 23, 2025- Congressman Andy Ogles introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow a President to be elected for up to but no more than three terms. The language of the proposed amendment reads as follows:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years. He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal. To that end, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd Amendment on presidential terms. This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs," said Congressman Ogles.
“It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration. President Trump has shown time and time again that his loyalty lies with the American people and our great nation above all else. He is dedicated to restoring the republic and saving our country, and we, as legislators and as states, must do everything in our power to support him.”
"In just a few short days, President Trump has already taken action to undo the catastrophic policies of the Biden Administration and put the United States back on the path to strength and prosperity. He has tackled the crisis at our Southern border by declaring a national emergency, deploying additional troops and resources to curb illegal crossings, and expediting the completion of the border wall. In a similar vein, he issued an order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens. Placing American safety as his top priority, President Trump designated Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations, empowering law enforcement to dismantle these violent networks with greater force. Aside from the border, he has set American energy free by declaring a national emergency to lift the Biden Administration’s oil and gas drilling restrictions. President Trump has also broken the chains of DEI by eliminating federal programs and reaffirming legally that there are only two genders, male and female. He has also initiated the process to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a decision I am personally very excited about following the Biden Administration’s disastrous COVID pandemic response,” said Congressman Ogles.
“Compared to the prosperity and protection offered under President Trump, the Biden Administration has subjected Americans to relentless abuses that will take a decade to correct. Small towns and major cities alike have been overrun by millions of illegal immigrants trafficked across the border, fueling a surge in drug overdoses and violent crime. Soaring gas and groceries costs have crushed countless families' financial security. Radical LGBTQ+ agendas have infiltrated schools and workplaces, while DEI mandates have destroyed small businesses, wasted taxpayer dollars, and corrupted hiring practices. Social media platforms were coerced into censoring free speech and suppressing vital medical information. Meanwhile, servicemembers have been stripped of their pay and rank for refusing a hastily-approved experimental vaccine. The list of this administration’s failures is as long as it is egregious," said Congressman Ogles.
By David French, New York Times, Jan. 26, 2025- I have never been more concerned about the rule of law in the United States.David French
I was born in 1969 — five years after the Civil Rights Act was passed — and I have no memory of the legal system operated in the Jim Crow South, when there was one code of justice for white Americans and a different set of laws for Black Americans. The very idea of justice in the old Confederacy was a sad joke. The white establishment took care of its own.
There was a distinct moment on Monday night when I stopped taking various legal notes on President Trump’s executive orders and realized that we may well be facing a different game entirely — one far more reminiscent of the Old South than any system of American justice I’ve experienced in my lifetime.
We’re still far from those dark days, but we’re walking in that direction. Trump’s mass pardons and commutations of Jan. 6 insurrectionists and his revocation of John Bolton’s security detail have changed the calculus.
... He pardoned the seditious shock troops of an attempted coup. ... Oppose Trump — as Bolton did — and he’ll leave you exposed. The domestic enemy has to pay the price, even if it means the foreign enemy may have greater access to an American target.
.... Trump’s birthright citizenship order. It’s extraordinarily broad. It doesn’t just block citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, it also blocks citizenship for children whose parents are legally present in the United States if they don’t have permanent status when their child is born.
This contradicts the language of the 14th Amendment, a controlling federal statute and Supreme Court precedent. The 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” (read it all)
David French is an opinion columnist for the New York Times. He was previously a staff writer for National Review. He writes about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator who has litigated numerous cases involving religious liberty. He is a visiting professor at David Lipscomb University and is a resident of Franklin, Tennessee.
 |
| From left to right, Dr. Anthony Fauci, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo. |
At the same time that he has made heroes of potential killers, he has removed the security protection for those who are likely targets of such "patriots." Trump has removed the security detail of Dr. Anthony Fauci and John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.
Dr. Fauci was the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and was the public face of the effort to combat Covid. Fauci earned the ire of many by his promotion of the Covid vaccine, lockdowns, mask mandates and social distancing. Some of these policies were later judged to be ineffective such as masking small children. Many on the Trumpian conspiratorial right viewed Covid as a minor type of flu used by the deep state, or the New World Order as an excuse to control behavior, and condition people to be obedient.
Mike Pompeo is the former Secretary of State under Trump and also served as Director of the CIA. After leaving office he received ongoing security protection due to threats from Iran. As Secretary of State, he had taken a hardline stance against Iran and was deeply involved in shaping the Trump administration’s policy toward that country and played a role in Trump’s decision to assassinate Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian commander and a really bad guy.
After leaving office Pompeo drew the ire of Trumpinistas due to criticisms of Trump. On the Trump
classified document case, Pompeo said, “Trump had classified docs when he shouldn’t have had them, and when given the opportunity to return them, he chose not to do that.” This of course angered the diehard Trump supporters. They are also angry at Pompeo because they feel he did not do enough to counter the Russiagate charges leveled against Trump.
John Bolton was Trump's National Security Advisor who left the Trump White House in November 2019. He has also received ongoing US Secret Service protection because of threats against him from Iran. Trump initially terminated Bolton's protection after he left his administration in the first term, but President Joe Biden restored it once he took office.
Bolton was architect of Trump's maximum pressure campaign against Iran and was also instrumental in the decision to assassinate Qasem Soleimani. Iranian Revolutionary Guard officials plotted to hire a hit man to kill Bolton but the plot was discovered and thwarted. There is no reason to think the Iranians have given up on their desire to take revenge on Bolton.
In 2020 Bolton published a book in which he claimed President Trump was terribly uninformed on matters of foreign policy, obsessed with how the media portrayed him, and had a transaction view of foreign policy. Bolton also said Trump sought leaders of Ukraine and China to help him win the 2020 election. Bolton shared his experiences working with Trump and painted a picture of man who was uninformed, who was irrational and not guided by any set of principles. Bolton said Trump was unfit for office.
Trump has let his displeasure with Bolton, Pompeo, and Fausi be known. I fear that that by withdrawing security details for these men, Trump is sending a message greenlighting action against them. He has essentially placed a target on their back. If I am wrong and that is not the intended message, I think that is the message some of Trump's more ardent supporters will receive. Trump doesn't care.
Much of what others predict and what I would predict is too daring. Some things he has said he will do; you can expect him to do. He has said he will institute a massive deportation plan on day one. I think it a safe bet to predict he will do so. I don't think the funding will be there or the time to deport anything like 15 million people, but I think it safe to assume that significant deportations will occur. I expect he deports those who have orders of deportation already who have not turned themselves in and criminals, which may add up to be about 2 million people. I then think the money, or the clock runs out and deportations stall.
Along with the deportation prediction I suspect the campaign promise and speculation that he will secure the border is a safe bet. Again, that will take money to physically secure the border but when migrants get the message that they are not welcome and they see deportations occurring, border crossing will drop dramatically.
Those are the two easy ones. Beyond that one's crystal ball gets kind of cloudy. What about tariffs? I do not predict the massive across-the-board tariffs that Trump threatened. Economist of every stripe think that would be detrimental to economic growth and would be inflationary. I think Trump will be talked out of it. He will implement some limited tariffs, claim his threat of tariffs changed behavior, and declare victory.
What about Ukraine? I predict the war to end on unfavorable terms for Ukraine. If the war ends with Ukraine giving up Russian-occupied territory and no grantees for Ukraine security and with a prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO, then Russia will have won. After a couple years, Russia will resume its attack on Ukraine or subvert the country and turn it into a client state. An encouraged Russia intent on creating a Russian-dominated Eurasia is a threat to world peace. I don't like that outcome, but unfortunately, I predict that is what will happen.
I predict we will not take the Panama Canal, purchase Greenland or make Canada the 51st state. I may be wrong, but I just don't think it will happen. Panama would be easy pickings and many Trumpinistas would cheer loudly. However, I think Panama may replace the Chinese company operating the port with a non-Chinese company, Trump will claim a victory and the threat to retaking Panama will be over. Trump spouts a lot of garbage that I have learned to not take too seriously. I don't think the US will invade and annex Greenland or force Denmark to sell it.
I predict NATO will continue to exist but with a less robust American leadership. One thing to watch for is to see if nuclear proliferation increases. If nations, such as Germany, do not feel secure under the American nuclear umbrella, they may seek nukes of their own. That is a frightening proposition. This is not quite a prediction but something to watch.
I am predicting that six months from now the price of dozen eggs and the price of a gallon of gasoline will not deviate more than 10% from what they are today.
What about retribution and the enemies within? I predict that there will be some investigations of the people on Kash Patel's enemies list, and it will cost the targeted a lot of money and anxiety. However, I am predicting Liz Channey will not be imprisoned. For the most part our institutions will hold.
So, what is my big prediction? I am going out on a limb: Within nine months of Trump's inauguration Trump will declare martial law.
I am unsure of the pretexts, but it is what authoritarians do. Frustrated with the pace of deportation and the obstinance and defiance of sanctuary city mayors, Trump may declare a state of emergency and direct the military to engage in deportation activities. We may see nationalized National Guard troops raiding worksites and patrolling the streets.
The pretext for declaring martial law may be a terrorist attack. If we had a series of events happen in a close time frame, related or not, similar to what happened in New Orleans, Trump could use that as the pretext. I am sure he can find a pretext. I am not going beyond saying Trump will declare martial law and predict what the outcome will be. It could be short-lived and almost insignificant or it could be catastrophic.
Sadly, I suspect that the majority of Trump supporters will support this. This is what they signed up for. They were looking for a strong man and will be pleased with decisive action. They will say Trump is bringing about law and order and defending national security. Abuses will have to get pretty extreme before his core supporters will care. Many of the new low-information Trump supporters will be back to playing video games. Activist liberals will care, but when they take to the streets that are under martial law that may just provide an excuse for further suppression.
Why would I think Trump would impose martial law? For one, he has called for terminating parts of the constitution before. In Dec. 2020 expressing frustrated with his failure to hang on to power he advocated terminating parts of the Constitution. Here is a X tweet where he called for that:
Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections! (link)
On June 1, 2020, when the country was in the grip of riots as Black Lives Matter and Antifa led violent protest following the George Floyd death, President Donald Trump gave a Rose Garden press briefing and Trump told governors and mayors to stop the disturbances, or he would:
I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the national guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them. (link)
During this period of the George Floyd riots Trump considering evoking the Insurrection Act but was talked out of it. My fear is that now, he will not have the same kind of people surrounding him as he did in his first term.
What could be the worst that could happen under a declaration of national emergency and martial law? We don't know. If he has the support of the American people and Congress, which he very well could have, his power would be virtually unlimited. He could exercise dictatorial powers, and then Liz Chaney could face a military tribunal, as Trump once threatened. If Trump seizes power through a declaration of national emergency and imposition of martial law and he begins to lose popularity, it may be difficult to force him to relinquish the power.
Martial law is essentially the same as suspending the constitution. Under martial law, the government could wield massive power. The right to trial by jury could be curtailed. The freedom of press could be suppressed. Elections could be delayed. The President could rule by degree. We have as a guide the World War II example of the U.S. military placing Hawaii under martial law.
Can he do it? Can he legally seize power and suspend the constitution? Yes, he can. It has never been done nationwide before in the United States, but there have been many instances in our nation's history where martial law has been imposed in certain regions for limited periods of time. There have been 68 instances in our nation's history where either state governors or the president have declared martial law. The first instance was Andrew Jackson declaring martial law in New Orleans prior to the Battle of New Orleans in 1814.
President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law in 1862 and applied it to “all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States.” (*)
In recent history, in 1957 Eisenhower used the U.S. military to integrate a school in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1962, Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent federal troops to Oxford, Mississippi, to quell rioting following the admission of James Meridith to the University of Mississippi, and in 1963, 1964, and 1965 federal troops were used for the purpose of facilitating integration or protecting protestors. In 1992 George W. Bush used federal troops to restore order in Los Angeles following the Rodney King riots.
While there has never been a nationwide declaration of martial law, there is nothing to prohibit it. The Constitution does not specifically make a provision for declaring martial law and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter. Despite the constitution not providing for it and the Supreme Court never acting on it, since martial law has been declared many times before, there is likely a legal assumption that a president has the authority to impose martial law.
Donald Trump’s second inaugural speech will be remembered as worse than 59 others, including his first.
by George F. Will, The Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2025- Although few presidential inaugural addresses are remembered, six etched in the nation’s memory felicitous phrases, perfect for the moments: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle” (Jefferson, 1801); “the mystic chords of memory … the better angels of our nature” (Lincoln, 1861); all Lincoln’s 701 words in 1865, carved in his memorial’s marble; “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (Roosevelt, 1933); “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans” (Kennedy, 1961); “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is our problem” (Reagan, 1981, often quoted without the first four words).George Will
Donald Trump does not deal in felicities. His second inaugural will be remembered for being worse than 59 others, including his first (about “stealing,” “ravages” and “carnage”). It was memorable for its staggering inappropriateness.
Inaugurations should be solemn yet celebratory components of America’s civic liturgy. Instead, we heard on Monday that because of “corrupt” and “horrible” “betrayals” by others, “the pillars of our society” are “in complete disrepair.” The challenges will be “annihilated,” not because God blesses America, but because God chose him. (read more)
Anyone remotely familiar with how deeply rooted the canal is in Panama´s psyche and how entangled the whole issue is with Panamanian nationalism would have easily predicted the passions these threats would stir among Panamanians. Ironically, this comes at a time when Panama has a pro-U.S. administration. Even though Trump often uses bluster in such cases, he may not literally mean what he says. It’s likely that he is trying to pressure Panama to make life difficult for China while scoring points at home.
Be it as it may, China is very far from controlling the canal. Here are the facts: The Panama Canal is run entirely by the Panamanian Canal Authority, a government body with no ties to Beijing. The expansion of the canal, a major multiyear project whose cost amounted to US$5.25 billion a few years ago, was funded by cash flows from the canal’s traffic itself (US$3.15 billion) and by multilateral bodies (US$2.3 billion) from Japan, Europe, another two whose main source of funds is the United States and one funded by Latin America, Spain and Portugal. Also, the bulk of the work was assigned to a European consortium made up of Spanish, Italian, and Belgian capital as well as Panamanian money.
Six ports handle most of the cargo in Panama. Two of them, Balboa and Cristóbal, are operated by CK Hutchinson Holdings, the Chinese concern owned by Li Ka-shing, the well-known tycoon. However, the most important port, Manzanillo, is controlled by SSA Marine, whose parent company, based in Seattle, is owned by American investors. The port of Colón is operated by a Taiwanese company, which is not exactly an ally of China. Panama International Terminal is run by a company based in Belgium and Singapore, both American allies. Even the smaller Almirante port is owned by Chiquita Brands, a U.S. company with historical ties to American imperialism.
It should come as no surprise that Hutchinson is interested in Panama’s ports. After all, it is the world’s largest owner/operator of maritime terminals, with operations in over 27 countries, including California’s Long Beach. Panama, in any case, is not a significant part of Li Ka-shing’s empire since it accounts for only 3.8 percent of Hutchinson’s worldwide throughput (82.1 million TEUs).
Indeed, a large part (more than 70 percent) of the Panama Canal’s traffic has to do with the United States—for a total cost of about $2.4 billion a year in tolls in Fiscal Year 2024, or an average of $7 million per day. Panama charges about $16 per ton. Does it sound like the Panamanians are really exploiting the U.S. economy? The U.S. government, which borrowed about $6.3 billion per day in Fiscal Year 2024, has many problems, but the Panama Canal is not one of them. And the U.S. economy, whose productivity has been low for many years and which is suffering from significant inflation, also has problems. Paying $7 million a day in tolls for trade that benefits American consumers and producers is certainly not among them.
I am sick of DEI and cancel culture and political correctness and progressive hectoring for not using someone's preferred pronoun, even when it is a plural pronoun when referring to a single individual. I am sick of seeing the Federal government trying to force schools to let boys who identify as girls play in girls' sports. I am okay that Trump placed all DEI officials on paid temporary leave. I am pleased that the Federal government will now only recognize two sexes.
I know of lot of what I don't like about contemporary culture is not a result of government action, but I contend that without government's thumb on the culture scale we wound never have gotten this crazy. Even before Trump's election we were seeing large corporations backtracking on some of their extreme DEI actions. We have also seen universities dial back their promotion of DEI policies. Maybe the culture would have moderated without the election of Trump. If so, it was not moderating fast enough, and Dems took every opportunity to prop up the madness.
I contend that it was the cultural war stuff that led to Trump's election primarily, not the price of a dozen eggs. Immigration was a major issue of course, but without the culture wars, I don't think Trump would have won. People were tired of having the PC stuff rammed down their throat and being denounced as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing rednecks and bigots if they didn't fall in line.
I addition to supporting Trump's policies on DEI and related culture war issues, I also generally welcome Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, but with reservations. I am concerned that Trump may deport families who have successfully integrated into their communities and become good members of society. I also think there should be a path for legitimate asylum seekers to apply for asylum.
Concerns aside however, I welcome Trumps border initiatives. The Biden administration had already made some reasonable changes, and illegal immigration had slowed considerably under Biden. However, it appears to me that the Dems heart was not in it. They only cracked down when it became a severe electability lability. It was hard for me to believe they would not open the floodgates again as soon as the election was over should they have won. After all, Dems could have avoided this mess had Biden not reversed Trump policies when he came into office.
Trumps new policies will deter people from making the trek to the border, once word spreads that people are not getting in. That is a good thing. I support the clamp down. I support the sending to troops to the border, as long as they do not engage in law enforcement activity. When people have fraudulently claimed asylum status and been adjudicated as ineligible, and have a deportation order, they should be deported. Most importantly, criminals should be removed. I do not support the mass deportation of 15 million immigrants, but Trump's initial action on the border, I support.
What is the case for a blanket pardon of the violent rioters? That we need to bring a close to a divisive era and promote social peace? ... granting impunity to political violence is apt in the long run to raise rather than lower the temperature of street activism and mob rule.
That it was unjust to prosecute anyone? We sometimes pardon people who break unjust laws, or even people who break entirely just laws protesting a greater injustice (Nelson Mandela, for example, was guilty; it was the South African system that was bad). But neither of those is true here. The laws against assaulting the Capitol and D.C. police are just laws. The 2020 election may not have been entirely fair, but it wasn’t stolen. There was nothing to justify violence on January 6.
Defenders of the pardons ultimately fall back on two arguments. One is that the justice system has been so lopsided in its treatment of leftist violence that it’s effectively unfair and a denial of equal protection to prosecute right-wing violence. The other is that January 6 defendants simply were unable to ever get a fair process and trial, so we have to act as if none of them were guilty of violent crimes.
.... If you take to its full logical conclusion the idea that we can never prosecute anybody if we don’t prosecute everybody, we end up with Hobbesian anarchy. If we buy the argument that it’s unfair to try the January 6 defendants before D.C. juries because they are so politically one-sided, how is that different from arguing that deep-red counties can’t prosecute (name your favorite “out-group”)? ... a blanket pardon for violence that actually happened is no way to restore law and order. (read it all)
Posts
All Comments
