More likely it’s the Ted Cruz strategy: let your mouth write checks you know your ass is never going to have to cash. Congressional investigations of Fani Wallis and even the Special Prosecutor have already failed to even get started. Johnson is just squawking for MAGA. Congress can’t do jackshit short of rewrite federal criminal jurisdiction to exclude ex-presidents from criminal prosecution.Johnson: President Trump has done nothing wrong… it has to stop and you’re going to see the Congress address this in every possible way because we need accountability. All these cases need to be dropped because they are a threat to our entire system pic.twitter.com/Vvg6pQRU52
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 7, 2024
And it’s too late to do that. Not that it would get through the Senate, anyway.
But this is really just Johnson’s hostage video:
And arguably, he’s trying to distract from this:This is his price for avoiding a motion to vacate. https://t.co/23zMrzwZxS
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) May 7, 2024
Which is a real thing:Jeffries: This is what we are dealing with on this magical house floor? With all of the challenges the American people are confronting? Liberty for laundry? Defending the dignity of dishwashers? Fighting for freedom of refrigerators? pic.twitter.com/Mf1M5Ide9D
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 7, 2024
Not that there’s any more substance to appliance regulation concerns than there is to “every possible way.” Especially when there is no possible way.They don’t. This is more Republican substance-free theater. It’s what they do. pic.twitter.com/BBWe7lMIP2
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) May 7, 2024
Unless, as I say, Congress tries to retroactively change the criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts. Which doesn’t touch the state cases, but Congress can’t reach those anyway. Not without just passing a law that Presidents/former Presidents, have absolute criminal immunity, starting with 45.
It’s a possible way; but about as possible as the GOP House assembling on the shore and commanding the tide not to come in.
One would think that, at some point, returns on this sort of meaning-free talk would start to diminish.Ockham's razor leads me to conclude that such talk was never intended for effect, but rather for the speaker to be seen speaking.Thus, the return is achieved by the act of speaking.At some point, though,there should be diminishing returns on that.
ReplyDelete