I expected nothing less than high-quality discourse in response to this post, and I've gotten nothing less. From an email:
"So you are saying that everyone is lying except you? But then how do I know you aren't lying too? Oh, I should believe you but not those others.
If everyone lies that everyone includes you.
Wait! I should trust your judgement but not those others, because well....why? Oh, because you say so.... Well that makes sense.
You left out the line: On my word as a White. Not quite the same ring as On my word as a Biden but close enough.
I don't believe the others. I don't believe you either. I don't trust their judgement. I don't trust yours either. Everyone has an agenda. You are not the exception to that rule despite what your ego tells you.
All of you remind me of the joke about the little boy:
There is a famous joke about a child who wakes up on Christmas morning and is surprised to find a heap of horse manure under the tree instead of a collection of presents. Yet, the child is not discouraged because he has an extraordinarily optimistic outlook on life. His parents discover him enthusiastically shoveling the manure as he exclaims, “With all this manure, there must be a pony somewhere!”
New York Times language maven William Safire stated that the entire joke would be brought to mind for many readers by simply mentioning the punchline: There must be a pony.
These are big, serious crimes, and they deserve to be discussed seriously and honestly. Odds of that happening are so slim even Lloyds won’t make book on it.
Now let me explain why everyone who disagrees with me has bad intentions, strange sexual fetishes, and small genitalia.
We should give Rich and company a break. They rushed this piece out about 5 hours after the indictment dropped. Who has time for meticulous case review when there's hot takes to get out?
I care about the truth so I'm compelled to note that believing the national review editorial team knows better is downright foolish and self-deceit. The national review is not committed to truth and most assuredly doesn't want to know better.
“Based on this, Ken clearly thinks Al Gore and Larry Lessig should’ve been prosecuted under 371 for the agreements and overt acts they took to overthrow the electoral vote count. It may shock you to learn Ken never took that position before! Hacks gonna hack.”
I’m not going to respond directly because it’s so manifestly bad faith bullshit. But for those who want to known in good faith and are truly interested: Al Gore litigated the 2000 election with the assistance of Lessing. Once he had a final loss — in SCOTUS — he conceded the election the next day. Unlike Trump, he never provided any data or argument to the Senate tabulation and certification session, let alone slates of fake electors or other fraudulent claims. Notably, the Trump indictment specifically mentions that Trump litigated, and specifically disclaims treating that as part of the criminal fraud, even though it was universally unsuccessful. The person asking this question is using a dumb/dishonest/both talking point for dumb/dishonest/both people.
Since accomplices made up the Impeachment "jury", and the then Senate majority leader allowed (encouraged) corruption of Impeachment #2 indicating it was the Courts job to hold accountable, the National Review position is ludicrous.
Oh yeah, the proper mechanism was definitely the thing their party blocked at every juncture and also said was improper that we would need a time machine to correct anyway 🙄 This whole article is one giant fart noise from a group of people who want to get street cred for defending Trump from their MAGA base while rationalizing to themselves "we're not actually defending his CONDUCT here, its just a process dispute." They, and the vast majority of the donor class GOP, have developed an acute case of spinal aplasia 🩻
This is a really great post. I think it’s just a bit overheated in a few places -- I think it’s a reasonable possibility that the NR crew that wrote this is some combo of impressively stupid, impressively reckless, and impressively ill-informed, and therefore to accuse them of lying is not quite as well-grounded as I’d like -- but it’s certainly fair to say (as you do) that, at best, the Cliff Clavens are running the office.
Thank you. This is an important piece, elegantly and intelligently written. I often think about how much pain the Senate could have saved the country by convicting on the second impeachment. But we are where we are, and are fortunate to have Ken's calm and clear takes amid all the ongoing nonsense. It is going to be a long year. Again.
Thank you for writing this. The bit about past uses of 241 was particularly enlightening.
Do you have any thoughts on the 'Costanza Defense' -- "it's not a lie if you believe it" -- that's going around? I know the indictment thoroughly establishes that Trump had been informed by his own officials that the statements he was making about the election were not true. Is there some kind of "a reasonable person would have known they were lying" standard? Or is there potentially a plausible defense that Trump is such a deluded narcissist that he really thought he had won every state?
Thanks for this., Ken Over the years, I have found your takes on federal criminal law and procedure (and the First Amendment) to be consistently knowledgeable and fair-minded I have come accords; no exception here
I expected nothing less than high-quality discourse in response to this post, and I've gotten nothing less. From an email:
"So you are saying that everyone is lying except you? But then how do I know you aren't lying too? Oh, I should believe you but not those others.
If everyone lies that everyone includes you.
Wait! I should trust your judgement but not those others, because well....why? Oh, because you say so.... Well that makes sense.
You left out the line: On my word as a White. Not quite the same ring as On my word as a Biden but close enough.
I don't believe the others. I don't believe you either. I don't trust their judgement. I don't trust yours either. Everyone has an agenda. You are not the exception to that rule despite what your ego tells you.
All of you remind me of the joke about the little boy:
There is a famous joke about a child who wakes up on Christmas morning and is surprised to find a heap of horse manure under the tree instead of a collection of presents. Yet, the child is not discouraged because he has an extraordinarily optimistic outlook on life. His parents discover him enthusiastically shoveling the manure as he exclaims, “With all this manure, there must be a pony somewhere!”
New York Times language maven William Safire stated that the entire joke would be brought to mind for many readers by simply mentioning the punchline: There must be a pony.
Keep adigging Ken"
Entire text of an email I just got on this: “cry more”
Amen.
These are big, serious crimes, and they deserve to be discussed seriously and honestly. Odds of that happening are so slim even Lloyds won’t make book on it.
Now let me explain why everyone who disagrees with me has bad intentions, strange sexual fetishes, and small genitalia.
We should give Rich and company a break. They rushed this piece out about 5 hours after the indictment dropped. Who has time for meticulous case review when there's hot takes to get out?
I care about the truth so I'm compelled to note that believing the national review editorial team knows better is downright foolish and self-deceit. The national review is not committed to truth and most assuredly doesn't want to know better.
There was a comment below:
“Based on this, Ken clearly thinks Al Gore and Larry Lessig should’ve been prosecuted under 371 for the agreements and overt acts they took to overthrow the electoral vote count. It may shock you to learn Ken never took that position before! Hacks gonna hack.”
I’m not going to respond directly because it’s so manifestly bad faith bullshit. But for those who want to known in good faith and are truly interested: Al Gore litigated the 2000 election with the assistance of Lessing. Once he had a final loss — in SCOTUS — he conceded the election the next day. Unlike Trump, he never provided any data or argument to the Senate tabulation and certification session, let alone slates of fake electors or other fraudulent claims. Notably, the Trump indictment specifically mentions that Trump litigated, and specifically disclaims treating that as part of the criminal fraud, even though it was universally unsuccessful. The person asking this question is using a dumb/dishonest/both talking point for dumb/dishonest/both people.
Opening Henry V quote appreciated
"This indictment describes a course of conduct that should live in infamy for centuries, [...] for as long as the country endures."
Given our current circumstances, "centuries" seems wildly optimistic.
Since accomplices made up the Impeachment "jury", and the then Senate majority leader allowed (encouraged) corruption of Impeachment #2 indicating it was the Courts job to hold accountable, the National Review position is ludicrous.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal
Oh yeah, the proper mechanism was definitely the thing their party blocked at every juncture and also said was improper that we would need a time machine to correct anyway 🙄 This whole article is one giant fart noise from a group of people who want to get street cred for defending Trump from their MAGA base while rationalizing to themselves "we're not actually defending his CONDUCT here, its just a process dispute." They, and the vast majority of the donor class GOP, have developed an acute case of spinal aplasia 🩻
This is a really great post. I think it’s just a bit overheated in a few places -- I think it’s a reasonable possibility that the NR crew that wrote this is some combo of impressively stupid, impressively reckless, and impressively ill-informed, and therefore to accuse them of lying is not quite as well-grounded as I’d like -- but it’s certainly fair to say (as you do) that, at best, the Cliff Clavens are running the office.
Thank you. This is an important piece, elegantly and intelligently written. I often think about how much pain the Senate could have saved the country by convicting on the second impeachment. But we are where we are, and are fortunate to have Ken's calm and clear takes amid all the ongoing nonsense. It is going to be a long year. Again.
Thank you for writing this. The bit about past uses of 241 was particularly enlightening.
Do you have any thoughts on the 'Costanza Defense' -- "it's not a lie if you believe it" -- that's going around? I know the indictment thoroughly establishes that Trump had been informed by his own officials that the statements he was making about the election were not true. Is there some kind of "a reasonable person would have known they were lying" standard? Or is there potentially a plausible defense that Trump is such a deluded narcissist that he really thought he had won every state?
Thank you Ken. I inhale your posts and appreciate the details.
It really is shocking how Trump-smacked NR is. Really looking forward to seeing DJT go down.
Thanks for this., Ken Over the years, I have found your takes on federal criminal law and procedure (and the First Amendment) to be consistently knowledgeable and fair-minded I have come accords; no exception here