A couple of interesting things I'm noticing in the prosecution's arguments in the two active Trump matters:
In front of SCOTUS, the argument is that an individual president can't be trusted but the DOJ from another administration can. It's a variation on the theme that no individual has the capacity to decide what is right, but a group of people once aggregated in government, becomes super-virtuous and can. Seems pretty Marxist to me.
In what I believe will be known in the future as Bragg's Folly, the government is arguing a conspiracy case - but Trump isn't charged with conspiracy. They don't have a case on any of the matters, they are just engaging in pettifoggery, desperately trying smear Trump so much the jury will want to convict him of anything because he is the Bad Orange Man. This one is sooooo bad, I'm seeing regret from the Dems this was even filed. After their original adrenaline high from the idea of "getting Trump", they are beginning to come down and realize what a huge dumpster fire this one is going to be - and that a dismissal, a not guilty verdict or even a conviction by this court is going to work for Trump, not against him.
This one is based on what I call the "Everybody Knows" legal strategy, as in:
"No, no. It is not us. We're cool," they say. "Trump is tots the Bad Orange Man. Everybody knows he is guilty of SOMETHING!"
Total and absolute clown show. The prosecution might as well be wearing big floppy shoes, an orange fright wig, and a red ball for a nose.
Both proceedings are set against the stark reality that the government prosecutors are arguing that the government would totally never do the things they are doing right now in full view of the public. It's mind bending to watch.
The irony of the moment is that these very prosecutions have been brought for the very reasons and with the very objectives the government's lawyers are arguing can never happen.
I thought it was interesting some of the questions in the SCOTUS hearing on presidential immunity were directed toward hypotheticals that were not hypothetical, they were based on actual events, and the government lawyers were forced to say, "we are not doing what we are doing, and it is a damn good thing for democracy we are doing them."
The government's arguments in both cases are absurd and surreal.
Furthering this absurdity and surrealistic environment, the radical leftists are trying to figure out how to protest in favor of Hamas without seeming to protest Biden at commencement events.
This is what happens when you live in a world of contradictions and cognitive dissonance.
Sooner or later, the contradictions run headlong into each other in real life.
It is pretzel logic (and not the Steely Dan album).
I was laughing as I read this NBC report.
The radical left wants to be all antisemitic without seeming to be protesting Biden's tepid support of Israel. This is a perfect case for the basis of logic, that a thing either is or is not - and the rad Dems can't square the circle here.
Proving, once again, if you burn the candle at both ends for long enough, eventually the two flames join to form one and you get burned.
The Democratic National Party today has the distinct look, and smell, of a floating dumpster fire. One hopes that it will go over a high fall (as in Niagara) and vanish forever. https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.7eeaecf3f7bbc5979774d3b391f79438?rik=9mUkxdI%2bSO%2bXwA&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
Biden's Uncle Bose story headlines the current feeding frenzy of the left. Their Conestoga broke down at the pass and the chuck wagon is depleted. When the enemy of my enemy starts to look tasty, we have the cannibal cunnundrum.