631 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Trey Harris's avatar

Reading Kim Wehle was the first time I heard some suggestion that Biden use the _Trump v. US_ immunity (can we just call it “the _Trump_ immunity”, like “the _Chevron_ deference”?) and reacted with “YES! Obviously!”

The previous suggestions were mostly not just outside norms and law but outside norms and law for a good reason. This time, as Wehle writes, they’re attempting a “checkmate of the rule of law” via delay. And THAT is an excellent reason for Biden to use the damn _Trump_ immunity, if nothing is.

Just f-ing do it, Joe. Cap off your now-tarnished legacy with a grace note. Maybe a dissonant jazz grace note that’s not your usual style, but a grace note nonetheless.

Expand full comment
Cascadienne's avatar

Absolutely! But who will make the case to Biden and, subsequently, to Garland? We need action now -- to rescue our endangered nation.

Expand full comment
MARYANNE C's avatar

…and grant Garland an unconditional pardon just in case!

Expand full comment
Cascadienne's avatar

Brilliant idea!! A taste of their own medicine, so to speak.

Expand full comment
jpickle777's avatar

Yes, Joe should do it, and might do it ... Unless he is afraid of Trump, too.

Expand full comment
Cascadienne's avatar

What does Biden have to lose now? Let's have 500,000 messages to Pres. Biden, ensuring our support for his taking action to get the records released AND, as suggested by MARYANNE, issue an unconditional pardon to Garland. Yes!

Expand full comment
Joe Lucca's avatar

Even easier: Since the prosecution of the two co-defendants is definitely not going to be continued by the next administration, pardon them and release the report(s).

Expand full comment
Cascadienne's avatar

Keep these ideas flowing...!

Expand full comment
Trey Harris's avatar

It would amount to the same thing; what you’re talking about is “mooting” (making a case or controversy irrelevant by removing its circumstances), but only a judge has the legal authority to moot. So even if Nauta and De Oliveira were pardoned or the cases dropped, Judge Cannon would still have to order the injunction lifted, and to make sure it happened before Jan. 20, Biden would likely still have to violate Cannon’s order.

(Unless she suddenly decided she can be as expeditious in doing the Biden DOJ’s will as Trump’s, which has never happened before.)

Expand full comment
Daphne McHugh's avatar

Maybe Joe should do more and declassify a lot of stuff about a lot of elected republicans. If Trump claimed he could declassify just by thinking about it surely same for same. I am confident that a steaming dung heap of corruption and foreign influence could cause utter chaos. Steve Bannon is right about flooding the zone. It shouldn’t be this way, but it is.

Expand full comment
Trey Harris's avatar

But that’s very much veering into the “norms and laws that exist for a good reason” territory.

The beautiful thing about this particular flex of immunity is that it would just be ensuring something that would happen under any and every other presidency (even across transitions) will happen this time, too, despite Trump.

Expand full comment
Walternate's avatar

I appreciate your distinctions with the YOLO Trump Immunity approach. Too many people were suggesting things like Biden declaring martial law because then he can prevent Trump from taking office, etc. This was just another reminder of how much smaller the world of Classical Liberal values has become as many of the Anti-MAGA forces were just against MAGA, but not their illiberal methods.

This proposal is more like Biden using his position to dislodge a clog in the machinery of government, as opposed to using his position to dismantle, destroy, or discredit that machinery.

Expand full comment
Tim Coffey's avatar

Finish off his term with a G7#5b9?

Expand full comment
Robert Kinghorm's avatar

Implying tension and dissonance leading to resolution?

Expand full comment
Tim Coffey's avatar

Or resolution with a twist. :)

Expand full comment
Ron Bravenec's avatar

Please explain.

Expand full comment
h.e.r.'s avatar

He spelled a very crunchy jazz chord.

Expand full comment
Tim Coffey's avatar

Gotta love altered dominants.

Expand full comment
Cindy's avatar

As a non-musical person, “altered dominants “ sounds like what Trump has done first to the GOP, and now to the Dems. I’ll be doing the same to my dog when he’s full grown.

Expand full comment
h.e.r.'s avatar

Musically, a dominant chord is a gateway home.

Alter it, and you add exponential texture and intrigue to your sound - you picked the most interesting door you could, and it'll still probably lead you home.

String a series of them together and you're driving the back roads on a sunny day in May. You'll get home eventually, but in the meantime you'll enjoy every minute of the trip.

Good on ya altering that dog 😉

Expand full comment
Tim Coffey's avatar

The poster I responded to mentioned a "jazz grace note". G7#5b9 is a **jazz chord** that sounds both gorgeous and sophisticated on guitar. I took the poster's point to the next logical level.

Expand full comment
Trey Harris's avatar

I’ve always been bothered by that idiom in general because in music you never *end* on a grace note— grace notes are played before another note. But I liked how it worked in this specific context anyway.

Expand full comment
Alan's avatar

If it was me, I'd probably go with a Lydian ending. Hold that #11 all the way back to Delaware.

Expand full comment
Tim Coffey's avatar

You're speaking my language. Something like a C7(9,#11).

Expand full comment
Alan's avatar

I was thinking more Cmaj7(9,#11)

Expand full comment