Also coming from Prof. DeLong. If Democrats have lost the working class, why bother? Just to advocate for civil rights for minorities half of whom identify more as Anti-Elite working class than they do as minorities? Sounds like Mr. Madison's little experiment has failed. Maybe you can help us to think prescriptively here?
Fully understand, that was the most controversial thing I wrote. Even for me it was a 55/45 kind of things. But when Trump is gone from the scene at 82, does anyone seriously think that Ds are going to resume either Jan 6th or documents case then, at his age? If that won't happen anyhow, then why not get something for it now, namely the preemptive pardons, and make it politically difficult for Trump then to try and upset them in court after Biden gave him a pardon? Just trying to be practical, we are from a perfect world.
Yeah, I got that logic and sadly you're not wrong about the Dems. For that matter, Trump is likely to be dead by 2028. But I still wouldn't pardon him because that would infuriate core Dems as much as the immunity decision did.
Nor do I think that Trump and his corrupt courts would hesitate to overturn any preemptive pardons.* But I think it's important that these pardons are *not* "preemptive" in the usual sense of that word. They would not (almost certainly could not) apply to future actions. And pardons for past actions aren't meaningfully "preemptive" unless one takes the position that pardons require prosecution first, which I'm pretty sure very few do. Nixon's pardon preceded prosecution, as did a number of early pardons (Whiskey Rebellion, Fries Rebellion).
That said, I'm skeptical that Biden will issue many pardons related to Jan 6. All of the Congressional actors have express immunity and can take care of themselves. There might be a few others, but private parties (say, one of the cops) would be too sympathetic to pursue. I'm inclined to think it's a moot point.
*I also think they'll let Trump impound funds if he wants to.
We can overthink all of this but if we really want to get to the root cause it starts and ends with Fox Entertainment. Losing over $500 billion for lying turned out to not be a deterrent and, in fact, they have dug in deeper on spreading lies and disinformation under the guise of news. Currently, Mark Cuban is attempting to mobilize democrats on Bluesky because he is one of the few who understands the implications of propaganda.
I submit to you that Biden should issue preemptive pardons far and wide - and then direct the DOJ to mount a legal challenge to those pardons.
Can Presidents pre-emptively pardon criminal suspects, as Kings used to do, or is the legal presumption of innocence in our system still relevant?
De facto, *^%$#! Nixon was guilty as sin. But a President is not a Pope, either, dispensing absolutions; he is a part of the administration of our system of laws, and should not have the power to short-circuit the process. De Jure, "Dick" was innocent, having never been convicted of any crime. There was nothing for Ford to pardon.
But since the precedent had been set, Reagan's handlers used it to shield themselves from being held accountable for the Iran-Contra illegalities.
Presidents should not have such power, or "no one is above the law" is a bad joke.
I arrive via my subscription to Prof. DeLong's substack.
Enjoyed your thoughts.
I suspect the surprises will set the stage over the next few years. Not sure Trump/his Cabinet/Musk are at all prepared to deal with the changes coming.
Leadership in Iran/Russia/China/N Korea look very weak at the moment.
As you argue: "One clear lesson of history is that vacuums are filled if we’re not there. And they tend to be filled by bad actors"
Also coming from Prof. DeLong. If Democrats have lost the working class, why bother? Just to advocate for civil rights for minorities half of whom identify more as Anti-Elite working class than they do as minorities? Sounds like Mr. Madison's little experiment has failed. Maybe you can help us to think prescriptively here?
You're right, on my agenda for 2025. Tall order. No one else has figured it out....
I've never disagreed with you more strongly on anything than I do with your approval of a Biden pardon of Trump.
Fully understand, that was the most controversial thing I wrote. Even for me it was a 55/45 kind of things. But when Trump is gone from the scene at 82, does anyone seriously think that Ds are going to resume either Jan 6th or documents case then, at his age? If that won't happen anyhow, then why not get something for it now, namely the preemptive pardons, and make it politically difficult for Trump then to try and upset them in court after Biden gave him a pardon? Just trying to be practical, we are from a perfect world.
Yeah, I got that logic and sadly you're not wrong about the Dems. For that matter, Trump is likely to be dead by 2028. But I still wouldn't pardon him because that would infuriate core Dems as much as the immunity decision did.
Nor do I think that Trump and his corrupt courts would hesitate to overturn any preemptive pardons.* But I think it's important that these pardons are *not* "preemptive" in the usual sense of that word. They would not (almost certainly could not) apply to future actions. And pardons for past actions aren't meaningfully "preemptive" unless one takes the position that pardons require prosecution first, which I'm pretty sure very few do. Nixon's pardon preceded prosecution, as did a number of early pardons (Whiskey Rebellion, Fries Rebellion).
That said, I'm skeptical that Biden will issue many pardons related to Jan 6. All of the Congressional actors have express immunity and can take care of themselves. There might be a few others, but private parties (say, one of the cops) would be too sympathetic to pursue. I'm inclined to think it's a moot point.
*I also think they'll let Trump impound funds if he wants to.
We can overthink all of this but if we really want to get to the root cause it starts and ends with Fox Entertainment. Losing over $500 billion for lying turned out to not be a deterrent and, in fact, they have dug in deeper on spreading lies and disinformation under the guise of news. Currently, Mark Cuban is attempting to mobilize democrats on Bluesky because he is one of the few who understands the implications of propaganda.
I submit to you that Biden should issue preemptive pardons far and wide - and then direct the DOJ to mount a legal challenge to those pardons.
Can Presidents pre-emptively pardon criminal suspects, as Kings used to do, or is the legal presumption of innocence in our system still relevant?
De facto, *^%$#! Nixon was guilty as sin. But a President is not a Pope, either, dispensing absolutions; he is a part of the administration of our system of laws, and should not have the power to short-circuit the process. De Jure, "Dick" was innocent, having never been convicted of any crime. There was nothing for Ford to pardon.
But since the precedent had been set, Reagan's handlers used it to shield themselves from being held accountable for the Iran-Contra illegalities.
Presidents should not have such power, or "no one is above the law" is a bad joke.
I arrive via my subscription to Prof. DeLong's substack.
Enjoyed your thoughts.
I suspect the surprises will set the stage over the next few years. Not sure Trump/his Cabinet/Musk are at all prepared to deal with the changes coming.
Leadership in Iran/Russia/China/N Korea look very weak at the moment.
As you argue: "One clear lesson of history is that vacuums are filled if we’re not there. And they tend to be filled by bad actors"