Sometimes it is hard to tell cynical demagoguery from honest irrational crackpottery. An excellent example is reporting about a recent "secret meeting" among federal judges to discuss the possibility of djt provoking a constitutional crisis. Right off the bat, one can argue that the premise of the meeting is stupid. Whether people know or believe it or not, the US has been in a constitutional crisis starting the day djt was elected to office in 2016. Of course, that depends on how one defines the concept.
For some, the rise to power of djt and MAGA constituted a constitutional crisis. But that gets easily dismissed as irrational alarmism, socialism, Hunter's demonic laptop, etc.
But the main point here is different, If the reporting is accurate, during that meeting John Roberts is reported to have dismissed a federal judge's concern that djt and his MAGA thugs were openly defying and ignoring federal court orders. Federal Judge James Boasberg, who blocked djt’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, expressed concerns about the administration’s open defiance of court orders. If it is true, and it is, that alone really does constitute an actual constitutional crisis.
Roberts’ response to that legitimate concern is just about equally concerning. He blithely dismissed Boasberg’s legitimate fear by saying that djt’s interactions with him had been “civil and respectful,” including a public acknowledgment during a joint congressional address. How the hell does djt’s alleged civility and respect to Roberts personally translate to respect for federal court orders? It doesn’t. It can’t because it is beside the point. It is irrational.
So, two options. First, Roberts is truly so loyal to Trump and the unitary executive concept that he blindly, unknowingly conflated Trump being nice to him amounting to Trump respecting the separation of powers. Call it cognitive capture or cult loyalty. Second, Roberts is a cynical demagogue deflecting from Boasberg's fact-based expression of a constitutional crisis. Only one of those two can be basically true, and there are no other rational options. Call it kleptocratic authoritarianism?
Is there any way to determine if Roberts suffers from cognitive capture from kleptocratic authoritarianism? Of course there is. Roberts was made chief justice in 2005. His public track record is huge. It is crystal clear that Roberts staunchly supports kleptocratic dictatorship under the legal fiction called the unitary executive theory. During his time on the USSC bench, Roberts systematically installed the unitary executive theory as a legal reality. That was not accidental. It was deliberate constitutional engineering to build a kleptocratic American dictatorship.
Bottom line - Germaine’s ~95% confidence level (~5% uncertainty): Roberts’ dismissal of Boasberg’s a factually accurate constitutional crisis was a cynical strategic deflection using insulting irrationality, not genuine belief, to deflect from the crisis.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Trump posted a short AI-generated video apparently entitled "No one is above the law" with Obama and djt in the Oval Office. The video shows Obama being arrested by FBI agents while a smiling djt looks on with great pleasure. Here's a screen shot.
Frightening fact: Tens of millions of adult Americans still support djt.