News chunk & bits: Dem discontent with Garland?; The Mar-a-Lago stolen docs case update; Etc.

In May of 2021, I concluded that Merrick Garland was grossly incompetent and needed to be replaced immediately. That wonderful post is entitled, Federal law enforcement continues to fail: Fire Merrick Garland. I was criticized for being too impatient. My concern then, and still is today, is that Garland was moving far too slowly in investigating and indicting Trump. By delaying so long to even get started, Garland seriously failed us and the rule of law. Now, in February 2024, some other folks are finally starting to come to the same conclusion about Garland and for the same reason. Politico writes:

White House frustration with Garland grows

The president believes the special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents went beyond his remit. And part of the blame is being placed on the AG.

Biden and his closest advisers believe Hur went well beyond his purview and was gratuitous and misleading in his descriptions, according to those two people, who were granted anonymity to speak freely. And they put part of the blame on Garland, who they say should have demanded edits to Hur’s report, including around the descriptions of Biden’s faltering memory.

Frustration within the White House at Garland has been growing steadily.

Last year, Biden privately denounced how long the probe into his son was taking, telling aides and outside allies that he believed the stress could send Hunter Biden spiraling back into addiction, according to the same two people.

“What Democrats do is they bend over backwards not to look partisan, and then they end up hiring people that are partisan but in the other direction,” said a Biden donor, granted anonymity to speak freely about the top law enforcement official in the country. “There’s no question in my mind that the villain here is Merrick Garland.”

But even as the frictions between the White House and DOJ remain relatively contained, outside Democrats are now openly airing their disapproval with Garland’s conduct, and their fears that his selection as attorney general may end up being fatal for Biden.

“Garland is far and away Biden’s worst appointee by an order of magnitude,” Robert Kuttner, co-founder of the liberal American Prospect. “And we all pay the price. If Biden goes down the drain because Garland has mishandled the investigation of Trump and gave Republicans a weapon … then the country pays the price. It’s not just that Biden gets punished for the stupidity of appointing Garland.”

Despite the “growing discontent” among some Dems, Biden has no intention of replacing Garland now. Maybe if Biden is re-elected, he will replace Garland then. Although it is probably too late to have a meaningful impact, Garland should still be fired immediately, assuming it doesn’t make the legal mess even worse.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Various sources are reporting that special prosecutor Jack Smith is losing patience with pro-Trump Trump judge Aileen Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago stolen documents case in a Florida federal court. Cannon has been sabotaging the prosecution and slow walking everything to protect Trump as long as possible. One of Cannon’s idiotic cannon blasts could easily wind up getting some innocent witnesses murdered. Law & Crime writes about the threat to witnesses she wants to create by doxxing them:

Special counsel Jack Smith has called out U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, saying her recent order to unseal redacted discovery records in former President Donald Trump‘s impending classified documents trial would needlessly expose witnesses and potentially trigger intimidation and threats — including to her.

In a 22-page motion for reconsideration and stay, Smith laced into the judge as he attempts to fight off public exposure to a swath of unredacted documents before what is a tentatively set May 20 trial date.

“That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment, as has already happened to witnesses, law enforcement agents, judicial officers, and Department of Justice employees whose identities have been disclosed in cases in which defendant Trump is involved,” Smith wrote.

If a deranged Trump supporter with a gun winds up murdering a witness, that blood will be on Cannon. She is a corrupt, morally rotted judge who really ought to be impeached before she gets someone killed.

On the delay front, Smith lashed out at another bad faith attempt by Trump to further slow the already snail’s pace trial, by filing new motions that assert Trump is immune from prosecution, even though the crimes he is on trial for in Florida occurred after he left office. Law & Crime writes: 

In a new motion, special counsel Jack Smith shredded Donald Trump’s latest attempt to indefinitely delay the classified documents case in Florida before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, urging the court to resist the former president’s efforts to “stop at nothing” to delay facing a jury.

“Their objective is plain — to delay trial as long as possible. And the tactics they deploy are relentless and misleading — they will stop at nothing to stall the adjudication of the charges against them by a fair and impartial jury of citizens. The Court should promptly reject the defendants’ motion,” Smith wrote in the 9-page brief filed in Florida late Thursday.

A tentative May 20 trial date has been set but it increasingly looks like that won’t get off the ground as Cannon has agreed to extend deadlines for other pretrial issues.

Most offensive to the special counsel is Trump’s attempt to dismiss the 40-some charges he faces for alleged illegal retention of sensitive and classified documents by attempting to advance an argument of “presidential immunity.”

The conduct charged took place after Trump left office, Smith wrote.

“The only purpose for such a frivolous motion in this case would be to artificially create a new avenue for potential delay, this time by attempting to manufacture an opportunity for a frivolous interlocutory appeal. It is another transparent effort to stall the trial,” the motion states.

Here, Trump delays by claiming immunity for crimes he committed after he left office. At this rate, Trump probably will succeed in delaying completion of this trial until after the Nov. election. If he is re-elected, this case will be dropped. Then, Trump will once again face no punishment for his crimes. Not only that, he will be the US president with freedom to commit a slew of new and much nastier crimes. 

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Christian nationalism update -- normalizing thoughts of civil war: Newsweek reports:

Evangelical preacher Andrew Wommack said that a "civil war" would be "worth it" if it meant getting former President Donald Trump back into the White House

"I've actually had people say that if Trump was to be elected if we got a conservative Congress, that they fear that we would have another civil war," Wommack said during a Wednesday episode of his Truth & Liberty show. "And you know what? I don't want a civil war, I don't know anybody that does, but would it be worth it? To turn this nation back? I believe it would."   

Wommack's remarks came in response to a call from a viewer who asked if it would be possible to have a "grace revolution" that would create a nation that would "use the Bible as the Constitution." In response, Wommack said there was nothing wrong with the U.S. Constitution, but rather the "problem" is that no one is following it.

"At no time did Mr. Wommack call for, or even suggest that, civil war is a goal or an expectation. Mr. Wommack also emphasized that our Constitution is not in need of changing, indeed it is vital that we adhere to its principles."

Here, Wommack does not call for civil war, but cleverly inserts the thought that if Trump is elected and congress is Republican, opponents will probably rebel and engage in a violent civil war. He also says no one is following the Constitution, hence reinforcing the need to defend "conservatism" by mass violence.

Is it just me, or do people notice (1) the raw authoritarianism, radical Christian theocracy, inherent in Christian nationalism, (2) the slanders and sheer cynical, self-righteous manipulation of truth, or (3) to avoid violating the Johnson Amendment, the almost, but not quite, explicit message for Christians to vote for Trump? This is first rate propaganda. Tens of millions of Americans actually believe it and are getting mentally prepped for violent action if DJT loses the 2024 election.

News chunk & bits: An analysis of insurrection arguments; AI lawyering is coming; Etc.

The Nation published an excellent legal analysis that concludes the USSC will leave DJT on the ballot in all states and the vote will probably be 9-0, or maybe 8-1 with Sotomayor dissenting. One point that all the Repubs and two of the three Dems raised is the prospect of some states blithely tossing Biden off the ballot and some seriously tossing DJT off the ballot for actual insurrection, leaving the presidential election a disaster. The Nation eviscerated that argument like this: 

Still, it was only when Jason Murray, the lawyer representing the effort to keep Trump off the ballot, rose to argue that the justices really started tipping their hands. Roberts, along with justices Samuel Alito, alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all asked Murray why one state—Colorado—should be allowed to decide who gets to be on the ballot for, essentially, the rest of the country.  

Murray had a credible answer for this, one that usually wins in conservative circles: states’ rights. 

[But Kagan] (like Roberts and Alito) kept hammering on hypotheticals, in which one state would exclude Trump while other states would exclude “other” candidates, and we’d be left in a situation where each state would have entirely different ballots for the presidential election.

Murray, again, had a basically credible answer to this. He said that we had to trust states to apply their own laws faithfully. He pointed out that insurrection was pretty rare and it was unlikely that states would cynically use the standard for political means. Now, I think we all know that Murray’s hopes and dreams are flatly wrong, given that we’ve all seen what red-state governors like Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis are capable of. But as a legal proposition, the court shouldn’t be deciding cases based on what it thinks bad-faith politicians will do with its decisions. At the very least, if bad-faith political maneuvers are a thing the court now cares about, it might try applying that standard to its voting rights and gerrymandering decisions first, instead of only suddenly becoming concerned about this when an insurrectionist runs for president.

That argument resonates strongly with me because of the phrase “bad-faith political maneuvers.” It is bad baith and ill-will that characterizes the thinking and behavior of America’s authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement. 

I think the author of this article, Elie Mystal, correctly analyzed the outcome of the insurrection lawsuit. DJT will stay on the ballot in 2024. Mystal ends her analysis like this, echoing Snowflake’s reasoning:

I’ve said repeatedly that there is no way in hell the Supreme Court would allow the likely Republican nominee to be stricken from the ballot. I’ve said repeatedly that courts and judges simply do not have the strength and courage to end Trump’s presidential campaign as a matter of law. I’ve said repeatedly that the only way to be rid of him is to defeat him at the ballot box, again, and beat back his forces who will try to steal the election, again.

Those warnings still hold after the court’s oral arguments. Once again, the law is not coming to save us. According to the Supreme Court, “states’ rights” exist only to make it harder for people to vote, not harder for insurrectionists to rule.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Such Science published an article about the use of AI to do routine lawyering tasks:

New study shows that AI can lead to cost reductions 

of 99.97% for some routine legal tasks

The goal was to see whether AI can match, or even surpass, the work of junior lawyers in both quality and efficiency.

And the TL;DR answer is that yes, it can.

The study, called “Better Call GPT, Comparing Large Language Models Against Lawyers,” was written by a team of researchers from Onit’s AI Center of Excellence in Auckland, New Zealand (Onit is a company that provides software and advice for legal, compliance, and other corporate departments).

The paper was published on January 24 on arXiv, a directory of preprints that have not yet been peer-reviewed, maintained by Cornell University.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Rolling Stone reports that a Christian nationalist Hobby Lobby billionaire family will be advertising for God in the Superbowl on Sunday:

This Evangelical Billionaire Family Wants to 

Convert You on Super Bowl Sunday

The Super Bowl will once again feature ads promoting Jesus, thanks in large part to the billionaire family that leads Hobby Lobby.

He Gets Us, the billion-dollar campaign to further raise Jesus’ profile, will be back at the big game this year to spread the good word. According to Greg Miller, a spokesman for the campaign, a 60-second spot will appear in the first quarter of the matchup between the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers, followed by a 15-second spot in the second half of the CBS and Univision broadcasts. Both ads “will emphasize loving our neighbors like Jesus did, encouraging people to respect and serve each other,” Miller says.  

The motivation behind the He Gets Us campaign, according to Green, is a desire to reshape public perception of Christians: “What we’re known as, as Christians, we’re known as haters,” he said in a podcast interview last year. “We’re beginning to be known as haters — we hate this group, we hate that group. But we’re not. We are people that have the very, very best love story ever written, and we need to tell that love story. So, our idea is, let’s tell the story. As a Christian, you should love everybody. Jesus loved everybody.”

The atheist peanut gallery had some interesting things to say about this. Apparently some do not fully believe the bit about Christians loving all people:

1. Friendly reminder: the Hobby Lobby CEO knowingly financially supported Islamic terrorists in the Middle East by buying looted antiquities. Hobby Lobby lawyers told him that the antiquities were very likely to be looted. He didn’t care. Then he lied on import forms for some of them. [Here is an AP article about the looted antiquities]

2. Anyone without his money would be in jail for what he did.

3. It’s no surprise this right wing fake-Christian broke the commandment about lying for stolen antiquities.

4. Exactly, I hate it when people use the “no true Scotsman” bullshit because it lets Christians off the hook. Of course not all Christians are like that, but most of them have seemed to turn a blind eye to all of the horrible shit that’s done in the name of Christianity. They should be calling out other Christians when they are being terrible people.

What does the discontented right actually want? How to talk to the rank & file right?

Some people argue that the left needs to be more respectful of the complaints and demands of voters on the right. That sounds reasonable in theory. What about in practice? Who are the right anyway? How are they defined? Gallup poll data as of Dec. 1, 2023 indicated that Biden and DJT were basically tied in approval ratings at about 41% favorable. If that data is reasonably accurate, about 59% of Americans feel that both are unfavorable.

The now radicalized and authoritarian Republican Party no longer puts out policy platforms, so one cannot get a feel for current policy priorities there. Recent polling suggested that the top priority for Republicans is border control. But since Republican voters elected Republican politicians who just killed any chance for border control legislation, it is impossible to reconcile what the rank and file voters claim they want with who they vote for. 

Other items on the Republican list of things that need to be done seem to be getting inflation under control, improving the economy generally, the high cost of health care, deregulating businesses, eliminating the socialist deep state and putting Christianity back into government and society. Like with border control and immigration, there is significant disconnect between Republican opinion about abortion and the politicians they vote for. Recent poll data indicates that 66% of Republicans favor abortion rights with some restrictions, but the politicians they elect tend to pass laws that restrict abortions more than what the rank and file seem too actually want.

There is a fair number of policy ideas that most Dems and most Repubs claim they support. That makes it hard to understand exactly what the right is so vexed about not getting. When policies that a majority of Dems and Repubs support are not implemented, it is usually (~85% of the time?) Repub politicians backed by special interest lobbyists and money who block what the people claim to want. What policies? These for example:

About 61% of Repubs want an official declaration that the US is a Christian nation, but after that, it gets messy as to what that would mean. The messages the Repubs give off are conflicting: Most Republicans Say Christian Nationalism Is Unconstitutional — But Still Support It:

source

Given the overlap in what both most Dems and Repubs claim to want, one has to ask why they don’t get those things. Corruption of politics by special interest money, opposition by rigid Christian and capitalist ideology and constant divisive, infuriating dark free speech seems to be the top impediments.

As far as I can tell, there are two main groups of Repubs. The elites and the rank and file. The elites have the power and are calling the shots. They have to use dark free speech to deceive the rank and file into belief that they want what the ranks and file wants. 

What messaging should the left be offering to the rank and file right and center? Should the US be declared a Christian nation with the Bible controlling the law and overriding the will of the people? What is the will of the people in this point? The will of the elites running the Christian nationalist wealth and power movement is crystal clear -- it wants bigoted Christian Sharia law run by bigoted, corrupt Christian Taliban elites. Meanwhile, 54% of Americans have never even heard of Christian nationalism.

What the rank and file right wants looks to me to be sometimes incoherent and sometimes significantly overlapping with what most Dems want. I do know what the radical right authoritarian elites want, i.e., much more opacity, power and money, with a lot less transparency, social burden (consumer protection laws, etc.) and environmental burden (anti-pollution laws, etc.).

Maybe the best message the left can offer to the rank and file center and right is a respectful ask for them to consider who is blocking progress on the things they want. For example, who blocked the border control bill that most Repub elites and rank and file claimed they wanted? Or, should the left respectfully tell the right that they both want lots of overlapping things and please tell the left how to deal with the politicians that Repub voters put in office? 

Given the cynical bad faith and ill-will that Repub elites operate with, is it even possible for anyone to talk rationally with them? If not, who should rank and file Repubs be talking to?

The October surprise came in February! Biden’s memory problem

Everyone is reporting about Special Prosecutor Robert Hur’s investigation of US government documents that Biden had illegally kept. Biden co-operated with the investigation and turned documents over immediately. The radical right is viciously attacking Biden because the report indicated that Biden's memory was seriously bad. The DoJ has decided no to prosecute Biden for “willfully” keeping the documents. Keep the word willfully in mind. The WaPo reports (full article here not behind paywall):

Special counsel Robert K. Hur’s report, while concluding that criminal charges were not merited for Biden’s careless handling of classified documents, painted a devastating portrait of an 81-year-old president whose age has become a central issue in his reelection campaign, saying his memory was “significantly limited” and that he had “limited precision and recall.” One reason prosecutors concluded they would have trouble pursuing a case was that a jury might see Biden as an appealing — if forgetful — senior citizen.

“At trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the prosecutors wrote in their report released Thursday. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

The AP reports:

A special counsel report released Thursday found evidence that President Joe Biden willfully retained and shared highly classified information when he was a private citizen, including about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, but concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.  

Despite abundant differences between the cases, Trump immediately seized on the special counsel report to portray himself as a victim of a “two-tiered system of justice.”

Yet even as Hur found evidence that Biden willfully held onto and shared with a ghostwriter highly classified information, the special counsel devoted much of his report to explaining why he did not believe the evidence met the standard for criminal charges, including a high probability that the Justice Department would not be able to prove Biden’s intent beyond a reasonable doubt, citing among other things an advanced age that they said made him forgetful and the possibility of “innocent explanations” for the records that they could not refute.

In other words, Biden’s bad memory saved him from being prosecuted. Biden apparently committed at least one felony but that could not be proved in court. The level of intent for willfulness would probably not be provable, so the DoJ decided not to prosecute. 

The irony of all of this is beyond stupendous. On the one hand, this report could cost Biden the election. He will be ripped to pieces by radical right authoritarian media, politicians and blowhards. But on the other hand, (i) Trump was far worse about his stolen documents crimes, (ii) he claims his memory is just fine, and (iii) once in the White House, he will terminate the stolen documents lawsuit against him. In other words, the felon Biden loses the election and avoids a having a criminal record, but the quadruple felon Trump wins the election and also avoids a having a criminal record.

Time will tell how serious this is for Biden’s candidacy, and for democracy and the rule of law in America. Right now, it looks moderately bad for Joe.

Qs: 

1. Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept? (I think it is)

2. Is bad memory Biden better than kleptocrat dictator Trump? 

3. Is this a political hack job by Hur to damage Biden as much as possible (shades of Comey dumping on Hillary in 2016)?