Jeff Danziger (Counterpoint) says that we’ve suddenly turned into a nation of legal experts, though, to be fair, he didn’t say “suddenly.” Rather, the sudden part is how we’ve focused our usual kibitzing on a particular legal question.
There are only a handful of cartoonists and columnists who have been to law school, which perhaps is why so many of them feel comfortable opining on the issue of whether Trump should be stricken from ballots.
Michael Ramirez (Creators) reflects a point raised in the Supreme Court arguments, which I don’t think requires having passed the bar: It would be so much easier all around if the 14th Amendment had listed the presidency among the offices specifically barred in Section 3.
I think that issue was raised in the spirit of throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks, but Ramirez is right: They likely assumed nobody’d be foolish enough to raise the matter.
I doubt it will impact the decision, because the more definitive point made was that a person who is only 34 could run for president, assuming that person would turn 35 by Inauguration Day. Similarly, the argument went, Trump could run for president, with his ability to serve being a post-election finding.
Which might elevate Vice-President Stefanik or Vice-President Taylor-Green to the presidency.
How’s that for an ace up Trump’s sleeve?
I’d prefer Kamala Harris, or even Edith Wilson.
Ann Telnaes did a masterful job depicting the justices. She put MAGA hats on the ones we could expect to side with Trump from the get-go, and included Justice Ginni, because if Clarence wouldn’t recuse himself over such a screamingly obvious conflict of interest, why not concede her place on the bench?
But Telnaes depicts the non-MAGA justices as somewhat uncomfortable, as well they might be, because the arguments against striking Trump from the ballot were persuasive, and, in fact, came from some of the more centrist or liberal justices.
Important factor: It seems highly likely that the Court will decide Trump should stay on the ballot, with his ability to serve if elected being decided by Congress (specifically the House). This would be the incoming House, which makes the down-ballot voting particularly crucial in November.
Now let’s ponder how many political cartoonists are psychologists, gerontologists or speech therapists:
Juxtaposition of the Day
Bennett makes the point that the investigation into Biden’s purloining of classified documents ended up recommending against filing charges, while both cartoonists point out that the special prosecutor took the opportunity to declare Biden an incompetent dotard, damaging his campaign and handing red meat to his opponents.
This is, first of all, another case where a legal background would be helpful, but a knowledge of recent history is beneficial enough to raise the question of why Hur chose to speculate on what is essentially a side issue?
Granted, intent is part of the potential crime. Nobody is suggesting that a bank robber could be acquitted if he didn’t remember the heist. But Hur established that Biden took some of his own notes, plus a few documents, that were classified. His intent — apparently to gather resources for his memoirs — would be relevant. Perhaps one sentence noting that a jury might consider him a sympathetic witness.
Not, IMHO, a string of accusations throughout an extensive — 14 page — “Executive Summary” of the 388-page document. Read it yourself.
Not that any reporters will. Can’t. They’re on deadline!
But they will go through the executive summary. That’s sufficient to cherry-pick Hur’s exciting, repeated diagnosis of the president, which is being compared to Comey’s extraneous remarks about Hillary Clinton’s email.
While as commentators at BlueSky noted, neither Meuller nor Starr said in their respective reports that Presidents Trump and Clinton would make bad witnesses because they seemed like rapists.
Sure seems like a long time ago. I say “seems” because I’d have to look up the specific dates those reports were released.
As often as people have decried “Whataboutism” and “Bothsidesism” in coverage, Dave Whamond points out that there are, indeed, times when it is valid to compare and contrast.
It’s more complex than adding up brain farts, because there is a substantial difference between saying “Mitterand” when you meant “Macron” and repeatedly stating that Nikki Haley was in charge of Capitol security on January 6. Whamond offers a list there, in the background.
Now remind us who called a press conference to recommend using chlorine bleach as an antibiotic? That wasn’t a verbal slip. Nor was looking at a photo of a woman whom he swore was “not my type” and telling the court “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife.”
I like David Rowe‘s take, because he does address Biden’s bad memory. For my part, I’m on record as having assumed, and hoped, that Biden was coming in as a one-term president to get the country back on track, leave a few silver bullets as souvenirs and ride off into the sunset.
Still, as Rowe indicates, the comparison is ludicrous, and the more you consider it, the more ludicrous it becomes.
To start with, Trump has announced his intentions to overturn the Constitution by fiat, to install quislings not only in his cabinet but in command of the armed forces and to generally do all the things the moderate staff in his first White House kept him from doing.
So, yes, I’d rather have a president who makes a verbal miscue now and again.
Though I guess if the majority of voters want to bring on a reign of fascism, that’s why we have elections. I think it was Rousseau who said the one thing you can’t vote for is to eliminate your freedom.
Might have been Locke. I have an old man’s memory and I read it umpty-ump years ago. But the point stands: Hold our beer.
John Deering lays out the situation as it is. Facing it is mandatory, liking it is optional.
For my part, I wish the Democrats had raised up some young, dynamic candidate to take the reins from a good man as he stepped down.
Or that the Republicans had shaken off their fever and nominated an honest, competent candidate.
And that frogs had wings so they wouldn’t keep bumping their little asses on the ground.