Friday, March 31, 2023

"A Date That Will Go Down In History"

"All the news that fits." (No, it's not real.) But as long as we're talking about famous people and humor: I'm not sure they don't believe in witches, though: Is she bringing her crowd with her? Or does she hope there'll still be some left at the store when she gets to the city? "You suggest that your request has a valid legislative purpose because Congress may consider legislation to shield former presidents from state criminal investigations for 'personal act' that do not involve their conduct in office." Well, some ex-Presidents; but not all of them. Seeing as only GOP ex-Presidents have needed protection from criminal investigation in my life time (Nixon; Reagan; Bush; Trump) and three of them received that protection (Presidential pardons), clearly this won't apply to Democratic ex-Presidents ("LOCK 'EM UP!"). But if the investigation does "not involve their conduct in office." why do they need protection from criminal investigation?
You did not identify any such legislative purpose in your initial letter, suggesting that your proposal to “insulate current and former presidents” from state criminal investigations is a baseless pretext to interfere with our Office’s work. Indeed, we doubt that Congress would have authority to place a single private citizen— including a former president or candidate for president—above the law or to grant him unique protections, such as removal to federal court, that are unavailable to every other criminal defendant. “[E]very President takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office. This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug.” Comm. on Ways and Means v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 45 F.4th 324, 338 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

I'm still asking: why do ex-Presidents get this special consideration, and then only those of one political party?  Of course, history tells us only those of one political party need it, so maybe that answers my second question.

I've got to end with this, because Bragg ain't playin':

Finally, as you are no doubt aware, former President Trump has directed harsh invective against District Attorney Bragg and threatened on social media that his arrest or indictment in New York may unleash “death & destruction.” As Committee Chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury. Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the Office’s investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York State, is politically motivated. See, e.g., Annie Grayer et al., Inside the backchannel communications keeping Donald Trump in the loop on Republican investigations, CNN.com (March 28, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/mr3n675p (“House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik . . . and Trump spoke several times last week alone, where she walked him through the GOP’s plans for an aggressive response to Bragg.”). We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.

Odds the House even seeks a subpoena?  Zip and none.  Still.  Odds they can enforce it?  Even worse.

Meanwhile, best way to watch FoxNews ever: 34 counts so far. Fox really needs to save some for Georgia and the DOJ.
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. The Thought Criminal11:41 AM

    If I weren't feeling so lazy I'd go and try to find out when "witch hunt" became a part of the American vocabulary, I'm wondering if it was in such active current use before The Crucible.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)