"Talking Feds" had Norm Eisen and Jennifer Rubin on their last podcast. If you include Harry Litman, the host, they have a lot more legal firepower than Sarah, and they thought it was a very well-conceived case. So there was some small comfort there.
"Talking Feds" had Norm Eisen and Jennifer Rubin on their last podcast. If you include Harry Litman, the host, they have a lot more legal firepower than Sarah, and they thought it was a very well-conceived case. So there was some small comfort there.
I listened to that one and that it was excellent. I especially liked Rubin's last take of the episode where she explains how Trump may have brought all of this on himself by declaring his candidacy. She made a series of excellent points.
Didn't hear it, but I'm not following the idea that Trump brought this on himself by any actions after the conspiracy. Luttig said something similar about how he could have made it all go away.
I get that for the documents, just cooperate and return them, but not this. This was a criminal act committed over a discrete period of time. What actions after Jan 20, 2021 could Trump have taken or refrained from that would make the crime any less serious?
Yeah, my guess is what Lee says. If there was ever an out for Trump, it would be that he would (somehow convincingly...) promise to retreat from political life and stop his shenanigans re: delegitimizing US institutions and in exchange, the Feds leave him alone (he'd have to make his own agreements with the states). Since I don't think he's capable of doing so, this would likely never work anyway, but it's the only way I could imagine letting him go unpunished.
It's all about him declaring his candidacy for the presidency. Rubin was pointing out the irony that he declared so soon to insulate himself from prosecution, but that declaring it is really what led to him being in his current position with respect to his actions surrounding J6.
She mentioned the approach Garland was taking and contrasted it with the approach of Smith. Garland took the bottom-up tack, and Smith seemed to take an approach more similar to that of the J6 Committee, focusing on ringleaders right away. And he produced an indictment that, were a bottom-up approach taken, may have never come. The indictment doesn't rely on anything from the rioters or the militias; it's all based on Trump and his coterie's activities. If Trump didn't declare his candidacy, Garland never appoints a Special Counsel, and if we ever would have gotten an indictment, it certainly would not have been this soon, and may have never come based on that bottom-up approach.
I would guess they mean if he went away, they might be inclined to just let it go to avoid the hornets nest and political destabilization. I get that, though certainly not my preference.
"Talking Feds" had Norm Eisen and Jennifer Rubin on their last podcast. If you include Harry Litman, the host, they have a lot more legal firepower than Sarah, and they thought it was a very well-conceived case. So there was some small comfort there.
I listened to that one and that it was excellent. I especially liked Rubin's last take of the episode where she explains how Trump may have brought all of this on himself by declaring his candidacy. She made a series of excellent points.
Didn't hear it, but I'm not following the idea that Trump brought this on himself by any actions after the conspiracy. Luttig said something similar about how he could have made it all go away.
I get that for the documents, just cooperate and return them, but not this. This was a criminal act committed over a discrete period of time. What actions after Jan 20, 2021 could Trump have taken or refrained from that would make the crime any less serious?
Yeah, my guess is what Lee says. If there was ever an out for Trump, it would be that he would (somehow convincingly...) promise to retreat from political life and stop his shenanigans re: delegitimizing US institutions and in exchange, the Feds leave him alone (he'd have to make his own agreements with the states). Since I don't think he's capable of doing so, this would likely never work anyway, but it's the only way I could imagine letting him go unpunished.
It's all about him declaring his candidacy for the presidency. Rubin was pointing out the irony that he declared so soon to insulate himself from prosecution, but that declaring it is really what led to him being in his current position with respect to his actions surrounding J6.
She mentioned the approach Garland was taking and contrasted it with the approach of Smith. Garland took the bottom-up tack, and Smith seemed to take an approach more similar to that of the J6 Committee, focusing on ringleaders right away. And he produced an indictment that, were a bottom-up approach taken, may have never come. The indictment doesn't rely on anything from the rioters or the militias; it's all based on Trump and his coterie's activities. If Trump didn't declare his candidacy, Garland never appoints a Special Counsel, and if we ever would have gotten an indictment, it certainly would not have been this soon, and may have never come based on that bottom-up approach.
I found it a thought-provoking take.
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.
I would guess they mean if he went away, they might be inclined to just let it go to avoid the hornets nest and political destabilization. I get that, though certainly not my preference.