Sunday, June 2, 2024

Never-Trump Republicans Like Larry Hogan Suffer from Bystander's Neglect

 

Roger Kimball, "Trump’s Trial Is a Symptom of a Larger Crisis in American Justice"

Naturally, the cataract of commentary on Thursday’s Stalinist guilty, guilty, guilty verdict against Donald Trump has divided itself into two distinct pools. One is gleeful. The other is alarmed. Rather than anatomize the differences between the two, I’d like to start by simply noting the size and fervor of the response. There are, I believe, two essential points to bear in mind.

The first is that the outpouring is only incidentally about Trump. You might find this a surprising statement since the news has been full of little besides Trump.

What I mean is that, although Trump is clearly the protagonist in this long-running drama, in the end, this story is about something other or more than the real-estate developer turned hyper-reality-show President. Trump himself has often put his finger on the key point when he insists that “they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

The astonished reaction to the cynically biased trial and the extraordinary verdict bear witness to this somber observation. “In Memory of Justice,” the title of Andrew McCarthy’s long column on the process and the verdict, encapsulates the point. McCarthy is no fan of Donald Trump—quite the contrary. But he understands that what just happened far transcends the fate of a single individual. Once upon a time, he writes, “Our system embodied the rule of law, the sturdy undercarriage of a free, prosperous, pluralistic society. Now, on its good days, it’s a clown show. On the bad days—there are far too many of those—it’s a political weapon.”

This weapon has two distinct functions. One is to harm enemies of the regime. Hence, the innumerable show trials starring Donald Trump as Defendant-in-Chief and his allies and supporters (here’s looking at you, Peter Navarro). The second is to protect friends and allies of the regime. Hence the kid-glove treatment thus far accorded to Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, deep-state apparatchiks from the DOJ, the FBI, and other coercive actors in the alphabet soup of state supervision.

The vast outpouring of commentary on this astonishing deployment of the law to achieve lawlessness is resolving itself into a hysterical (I do not mean “funny”) rictus of alarm reminiscent of a painting by Edvard Munch. The extremity of the rhetoric registers the seriousness of the situation. But it also, ironically, may act as a soporific, impeding any effective action. “We’ve said our piece and made our case. Now we can move on.” Unfortunately, we can’t.

And this is the second essential point to keep in mind. The diagnosis can be as eloquent and dire as you like. It is difficult at this stage of our societal devolution to think that the damage reports, however thorough, are much more than the “words, words, words” with which Hamlet replied to Polonius.

In fact, I worry that the response to this frontal and deadly assault on the rule of law will end up looking something like what the movie Team America showed when it introduced the feckless U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix to the North Korean dictator. Open up your military installations to my inspection, Blix demanded, or else. “Or else what?” Kim demanded. Or else “We will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.” Moments later, Blix is dropped into a tank and devoured by hungry piranhas.

It’s funny in the movie. It’s not so funny in real life. But here we are.

Hans Blix is unavailable, but we have Larry Hogan, Maryland’s governor and 2024 senatorial candidate for the emasculated, formerly Republican, party. Responding to the impending verdict in the Trump case, Hogan issued this emetic little tweet: “Regardless of the result [!], I urge all Americans to respect the verdict [!]and the legal process [!!]. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.”

That ship has sailed, Guv. There is no rule of law in the United States. There is only rule of the regime party. Which is why Mark Steyn, responding to Hogan, described him as an “all too typical wanker Republican senate candidate.” Steyn continued:
I loathe the likes of Hogan far more than I loathe Alvin Bragg: The latter campaigned for office on a promise to get Trump, and delivered to his voters. The former, in pretending that there is anything “great” about this that should command our “respect,” is making evil and corruption respectable and bipartisan.
Quite right. The commentator Megan Kelly, who seems to have definitively boarded the Trump train, is right that Thursday’s verdict represents “a before and after moment for America. It is a line we can’t uncross.” She is also right that what the country needs now are real fighters, people like Steve Bannon, host of the War Room. Horace Walpole once observed that “No country was ever saved by good men because good men will not go to the length that may be necessary.” I think it is worth bearing that clarifying, if unsentimental, bit of practical wisdom in mind.

6 comments:

  1. \\Naturally, the cataract of commentary on Thursday’s Stalinist guilty, guilty, guilty verdict against Donald Trump...

    And that verdict are on paper already? ;-P

    Where I can look at it?

    How many years? What other penalty? ;-P

    I presume... judge will be "thinking" about it, for as long as possible time. ;-P

    Because that judge KNOW, that HIS bolls will be in nutcracker... not of any of that miserly jurors. ;-P

    :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  2. So... where is DOCUMENT???? Embodiment of crazy cretinity, as you "The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders" call itself. Rightfully. ;-P

    Why they do not brag about that in news????

    Why there are NO waterfalls of glee from DEMN side????

    Fotos of dRump in orange robe and etc????

    Where all that???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Or you cretin DO NOT need FACTS... for confirmation of your deluded dreams???? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    It already happened in you broken mins, deluded imagination???

    An DA FK that Reality -- where it DIDN'T happened. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Trump's Trial Is a Symptom of a Larger Crisis in American Justice".

    Is the crisis that he wasn't prosecuted sooner? Yeah, Merrick Garland should have moved faster. But, how is that a "symptom of a larger crisis in American Justice"?

    Qtard: So... where is DOCUMENT???? Embodiment of crazy cretinity, as you "The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders" call itself. Rightfully. ;-P

    What document? I heard that this was a "documents case". In that the documents proved that donald tRump is guilty. You're referring to one of those documents?? I don't know about any document that is an "embodiment of crazy cretinity". No such document was introduced as evidence during the trial. That could be another of your mentally ill delusions.

    Qtard: Why they do not brag about that in news????

    What is "that"?

    Qtard: Why there are NO waterfalls of glee from DEMN side????

    About what? tRump's conviction? There has been. I saw donald's niece, Mary Trump, on TV. She said the convictions made her smile. trumpturds are bigly butthurt about it.

    Qtard: Fotos of dRump in orange robe and etc????

    Why? Is that your fetish?

    Qtard: Or you cretin DO NOT need FACTS... for confirmation of your deluded dreams.

    Facts about what? The facts the jury had access to? The facts the jury used to determine that donald tRump is guilty as charged? Those facts?

    Qtard: It already happened in you broken mins, deluded imagination???

    What is "it". Is "it" donald tRump's conviction? Yes, that already happened. The jury looked at the facts, deliberated, and then found donald tRump guilty.

    Qtard: An DA FK that Reality -- where it DIDN'T happened.

    Qtarded gibberish.

    Here is some information concerning one of the documents via the Microsoft AI. Though I don't know if this is what you're talking about or not...

    During the trial, prosecutors introduced a critical document with handwritten notes as evidence. This document played a significant role in the case against Donald Trump. Here are the details:

    Document Description: The document in question contained handwritten notes by Allen Weisselberg, who was the Trump Organization's then chief financial officer.

    Content: These notes outlined the structure of the hush money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels.

    Context: The jury saw this document, which appeared alongside Michael Cohen's First Republic bank statement. The bank statement showed a $130,000 wire transfer to Daniels' attorney, and Weisselberg's notes detailed how Cohen should be repaid $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,0001.

    These handwritten notes were crucial evidence in the trial, shedding light on the financial arrangements related to the hush money payments.

    ReplyDelete
  4. \\Is the crisis that he wasn't prosecuted sooner? Yeah, Merrick Garland should have moved faster. But, how is that a "symptom of a larger crisis in American Justice"?

    Asking, because you are cretin? ;-P



    \\Qtard: So... where is DOCUMENT???? Embodiment of crazy cretinity, as you "The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders" call itself. Rightfully. ;-P

    \\What document?

    Court verdict -- it need to be summarized in a form of official document open to public.

    But, of course, you are cretin and dunno such a trivia.





    ReplyDelete
  5. Qtard: Asking, because you are cretin?

    Asking for clarification. Because I am not a mind reader.

    Qtard: Court verdict -- it need to be summarized in a form of official document open to public. But, of course, you are cretin and dunno such a trivia.

    I don't know. I Googled it, but I couldn't find anything quickly. Obviously you don't know, or you wouldn't be asking me to do your research for you. Or, you do know "such a trivia". So why don't you tell me? Or you could admit your cretinity.

    If you reply again (and you say you ALWAYS do, so I better see a reply soon) I EXPECT to see a link to these documents. Or an admission by you of being a cretin. NO EXCUSES.

    ReplyDelete