Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[John]

** 21-Aug-2023 World View: Who speaks for me?

You say that Trump is a liar. I say that Trump
speaks for me. A lot of Republicans agree.

The Biden Crime Syndicate speaks for no one
except to the élite rich men north of Richmond.

[Bob Butler]

So far, the only charges against the Biden family or administration seem to be the misdemeanor gun possession and tax evasion charges against Hunter. At that, neither charge is normally used by prosecutors. If you pay taxes late, you get hit with interest. I think the Trump appointed prosecutor made the charges out of embarrassment that he couldn't find anything else. For this you slander a bunch of people?

Compare that to the Trump family, administration and various corporations. Lots of charges. The charity dissolved. The business found guilty. The chief financial officer jailed. The need to pardon a bunch of his criminal associates. Guilty of rape and defamation, more pending. Trump has more crimes charged against him than Heinz catsup has varieties. His thugs have been imprisoned far far more than Biden's. Oh. I forgot. Biden doesn't have thugs. If you don't hold insurrections against the peaceful transfer of power, you don't need thugs.

We will see how many of the court cases are televised. You remain willfully ignorant. You will probably remain willfully ignorant. Reading the indictments would convince a vaguely reasonable person, but what has that to do with you? Preserving your worldview requires that you remain ignorant, so you will choose to remain so. Modifying your worldview significantly at your age is rare. I don't really expect it.

[Guest]

** 21-Aug-2023 World View: Who speaks for me?

You say that Trump is a liar. I say that Trump
speaks for me. A lot of Republicans agree.

The Biden Crime Syndicate speaks for no one
except to the élite rich men north of Richmond.

I would support a breakaway country under Trump. Better my chances of survival.

[Bob Butler]

I would support a breakaway country under Trump. Better my chances of survival.

Interesting. Do you favor a particular path towards a breakaway country? If Biden proceeds on his current path, how do you see your survival threatened?

[Bob Butler]

I would support a breakaway country under Trump. Better my chances of survival.

I have been thinking on this post for a bit. Breaking away should require a constitutional amendment. I would propose one where if two thirds of the voters in a referendum withdrew the consent of the governed, the federals would have to acknowledge it and negotiate a split. At that, there are certain critical federal properties to be considered. Places like Cape Kennedy, Norfolk, and the various air / space bases around Colorado Springs would want to remain under federal control.

I note too that Colorado Springs is a major internet location, with a bunch of churches locating there to take advantage of connectivity. Do we want such infrastructure to have to deal with international borders? Each location is unique enough that the state legislature of the breakaway state might have to negotiate conditions. Also, the withdrawing states might have to absorb their fair share of any national debt. Details would have to be worked out, likely in advance, even with a constitutional amendment. That said, many states do not contain things which are so critical to the US and could breakaway with less difficulty.

Survival? The violence lately has been by a few that I think even MAGA would consider exceptionally extreme. Invade an FBI building with an assault rifle? Threaten violence against those that are trying to enforce rule of law? Is ‘Guest’ a judge, prosecutor or policeman that he has to worry about MAGA? Rule of law is as much an American value as protecting rights or establishing equality, and Biden is not instigating the violence. This one doesn’t seem to make much sense.

[Bob Butler]

According the the Midas Touch YouTube channel, a lawyer in Florida has asked the basic federal court to find Trump unable to serve in public office again. He quotes the 14th Amendment Section Three, the Disqualification Clause, as the legal reason. He also mentions the recent legal scholarship to support him, so far with nobody with reputation disputing it.

Putting it explicitly to a federal court this early will hurry things up somewhat. I am particularly curious as to what this would do to the Republican nomination race. Currently most candidates seem to be running for Vice President, playing nice with Trump to keep their chances up. A few such as Pence and Christie are obvious exceptions. Trump disqualified would force a lot of people to shift gears.

I expect more than a little outrage from those who don't know the Constitution.

[Bob Butler]

Apparently, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire, David Scanlaln (R!) is looking at removing Trump from the New Hampshire primary ballot. A slightly different tangent from that being tried in Florida, and still likely to get to the Supreme Court.

[Bob Butler]

You know, several attempts are being made by congressmen to interfere with the criminal cases against Trump, or threaten the economy to protect Trump. If Trump is considered an insurrectionist, how is this not considered giving aid and comfort? If they clearly do give aid and comfort, how are they still eligible to hold office?

It feels like I'm stretching it a bit, but I'd like to see it raised as a possibility.

[Bob Butler]

Trump has been making ‘confessions’ for some time, saying as part of PR interviews things that will be harmful in court. In other cases, with other defendants, you might turn this into an insanity defense, but would someone pretending to be a candidate for president declare himself insane? No requirement says that the president has to be sane?

Still, the possibility of some sort of plea deal exists? Would you trade a no candidacy pledge for a selected no persecution pledge that keeps Trump out of jail? What would this do to the Republican nomination? How much would the people running for Vice President under Trump have to shift their position? Who gets vindicated?

[Bob Butler]

On the 14th Amendment Section 3 again, while Florida will not give standing to ordinary voters and refused to take up the case, it seems Colorado passed a law some time ago that allows a bunch of ordinary voters to confirm the 14th should be applied. The plaintiffs are not exactly ordinary voters. They are mostly former or old style conservatives who want their party back. There is a scattering of other folks so it doesn't look like a single issue complaint, but it looks like they have a case.

The interesting parts are the trial start date of October 3, and the no intimidate gag order. While the gag order isn't specifically aimed at anyone in particular, it doesn't take much reading between the lines to guess it is targeting Trump. One gets the impression that this judge means it. No trying this one in the court of public opinion.

While the court date is early, I anticipate (thanks to professor Tribe) it will be appealed by whichever side loses all the way to the Supreme Court. It may be joined by other states, perhaps ruling differently. If the Constitution is taken seriously by the courts, this will make a grand mess out of the Republican primaries.