On the defendent

[H2O Man]

" For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to investigate, a time to indict; a time to try, and a time to convict." -- H2O Man


As anticipated, in the days following the defendent being indicted by Jack Smith, his poll numbers took a jump among registered republicans. Considering the amount of time between today and the 2024 election, this is not a matter to be surprised by. It is no more astonishing that the sun rising in the east.

Now, good people wonder how both other republican candidates for the presidency and other more traditional party "leaders" will respond to the indictments? Since 2016, we have witnessed profiles in cowardice, where the very few people who dared question the defendent are quickly shunned. There remains a maga malignancy within the party that prevents the majority of non-cult members from openly telling the truth.

Chris Christie volunteered to serve as the republican attack dog, who is attempting to batter the ex-president he once praised. He is rolling the dice on being picked for the vice presidential candidate of the non-defendent nominee, in the long tradition of the republican party. Older community members understand how this is intended to work. This allows other candidates to begin to take a more neutral stance on the document case, rather than fully lying about this being President Biden going after the defendent. Small steps, of course, but even the charismatic Mike Pence almost dares to say what he really thinks.

This brings us to what happened on the weekend news shows. The toxic toad that served as the defendent's personal Attorney Generally continued his road show. Necroconservative John Bolton expressed his disgust with the defendent's stealing plans for a potential attack on Iran, the wettest of John's wet dreams. And the defendent's former secretary of defense Mark Esper said he poses a risk to national security.

The person that poses the greatest stumbling block to the defendent being convicted is, of course, is Aileen Cannon. While I do not want to stoke fears of what she might do to protect the defendent, there are advantages to being realistic. Is she paying attention to what the republican "establishment" -- including those who served the defendent -- are saying about the case? If so, does she view their words as meaningful, or as a betrayal od her hero?

There's a book that I don't think anyone here needs to read, but is still important, titled, "Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation." One might find that much in her background, including her previous outrageous rulings in the initial documents court hearings, suggests that she subscribes to heresy that the defendent is the divine messenger of the lord.

On the other hand, she may be open to listening to her clerks, as well as the growing voices of republicans who are beginning to admit that the defendent broke the law. Time will tell.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Time will tell, indeed, my dear H20 Man. Thank you for your excellent analysis of the situation. nt

[H2O Man]

2. Thank you!

When Cassius gets here, I hope to get a picture or two for the other place, of him near one of my rose gardens. I'm getting some nice blooms this week.

[Martin Eden]

3. Judicial appointments like Aileen Cannon

Will metastasize the maga malignancy all the way up to the Supreme Court. Fortunately this cancer does not spread by itself; the survival of our Constutional democracy depends on Democrats winning the most important elections.

The Republican Party shows no signs of changing course towards ever more extreme magamania.

[H2O Man]

7. Right.

I think the Supreme Court has been infected with corruption since Bush v Gore, and made much worse by the defendent's nominees that were seated. We have a long, extremely difficul fight ahead. I have always tended to welcome long, hard fights, and am confident that this generation will shift into a higher gear now.

[Saoirse9]

4. I think Jack Smith has a good grip on Cannon

I am not worried about Cannon. Joyce Vance has said that the CIPA laws underlying this case would allow Smith to reverse her or even remove her if she gets cute.

Today in my newsletter, I explain how CIPA works & how provisions authorizing an immediate appeal of adverse decisions may let prosecutors challenge Judge Cannon's decision to remain on the case, without incurring additional delay.

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/handling-classified-material-at-trial

[H2O Man]

8. Right.

Mr. Smith can appeal almost any decision she could make -- except if she were to dismiss the case. And she has already been reversed twice on earlier rulings. If she were to make a bad ruling, Mr. Smith would most likely move to have her removed.

Joyce Vance is a treasure.

[Kid Berwyn]

5. The defendant on dealing with spies...

pee-resident trump in 2019:

"I want to know who's the person, who's the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy," Trump said, according to The Los Angeles Times. "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-says-our-country-stake-whistleblower-account-made-public-n1059011

For defendant traitor, the worst is yet come.

Really appreciate your inspiration from Ecclesiastes. There are times to forgive and times to punish.

[H2O Man]

9. Yep!

The melt-down shall continue!

[BlueGreenLady]

6. Might want to turn your spell check on

I cannot live without it because I am the worst speller in the world.

[H2O Man]

10. Not at all.

I'm Irish, and have the absolute right to spell or mis-spell words any way I want. (Plus I readily admit I make mistakes, and do not seek to hide that fact. This, I believe, is the result of being raised Catholic until I was old enough to skip church.)

[ggma]

14. Love your post!

I'm pretty sure that we would be friends in the real world! Salt is my favorite seasoning 😉

gg

[H2O Man]

19. Although I'm not very

smart, I do think there is something to genetics. My grandfather came from Ireland as a boy in the 1870s. He always insisted on wearing a three-piece suit ...... even in the heat of summer, and even when he lived on a remote farm in upstate New York later in life. The dirt road he lived on was about 7 miles long, and there were only two other houses on it. But he wore a suit. His younger brother, who I am named after, wore whatever was comfortable, though never a coat in the winter. (He had worn a uniform in WW1.)

Two of my uncles were legendary detectives. One kept his closet color-coded, and even after retiring, polished his the shoes or sneakers he wore at the end of the day. His brother would wear a suit to court, but other than that, dressed comfortably.

My oldest brother invested lots of money in nice clothes, and used to annoy the hell out of me whenever he was getting ready to go anywhere. On a recent FB photo, my 6th grade sweetheart pointed out that I was wearing a sweatshirt that a railroad museum I founded last sold 30 years ago. She still has one, but rarely wears it, she says. I suggested that as she recently retired from her career in medicine, she will have more opportunity.

My younger son has to be dressed perfectly. He even wears his hair short (I've had one haircut since 1975). My older son dresses much like me -- perhaps because I tend to wear his clothes that he outgrew years ago.

Now, I'ce said all of that, to say this: I can respect that some people are concerned about spelling, even on this forum. And I do, I admit, if I'm writing a book, for a book, or for publication. But my meager contributions here are rough drafts, with rare exceptions such as my three-part interview with Dr. Bandy Lee, or with Maya Wiley or my old friend Mark Rudd. Also, some of my best friends have short hair. I wasn't upset when a short-haired man moved into my neighborhood. So long as one isn't dating one of my daughters, I try to forgive short-haired men. Yet, I have never been concerned about spelling to the degree that I would bother with spell check. I pray others can forgive me for that.

[ggma]

22. That was an awesome piece.

I truly love your writing.

gg

[wnylib]

18. My auto correct is my adversary.

I am a fairly good speller. But my auto correct is hyperactive and insists on second guessing me. If I type "in" it assumes that I meant "on" and changes it. Many times I have typed a word correctly and it appears correctly when I press submit. But the auto correct does a switch and replaces a word in my posts with another one when I submit the post. Consequently, my posts are often full of correctionap edits that I do after submitting tge post. It's quite annoying because I don't always re-read the post after submission, until someone responds to it and I see that the post did not say what I typed.

I can prevent this by clicking on a word after typing it in order to "set" it as is. Problem is that I can't always anticipate which word the auto correct will mangle.

[Permanut]

11. Well said..

Extra points for "profiles in cowardice".

[H2O Man]

12. Thanks!

[kentuck]

13. Concern about which course the Loose Cannon might take?

The trial, with its concerns about the classified information, and who gets to see it, will probably take some time to complete? That may be the likely course of the trial. It will be delayed as much by the process as it might be by any judge. It would be nice to see her set an example for other judges. But she does seem to be dedicated to Trump. Will she remain loyal? Or will she try for a speedy trial, as much as possible, and follow the rules of law?

While the system works thru the process, it might be expected for Jack Smith to move on to the January 6th indictments?

Then, we have Fani Willis in Georgia. What direction will she go?

[H2O Man]

16. Great questions.

I'd be concerned by any inexperienced federal judge being appointed to hear this case. That district has the computerized selection, and no doubt Mr. Smith was aware there was a good chance it would come up for her. I've heard reports that there were only either three or four others in the running.

I'll speculate that no new federal judge enjoys being humiliated publicly, and the decisions to overturn her two previous rulings meet that definition. They were harsh, coming from a very conservative three judge panel. My understanding is that she did not pay attention to her clerks, which is really never good. Even some of the best justices on the USSC knew to listen to the clerks, with one example being it was a clerk that got the USSC to totally reverse the way they were going to vote on Ali's appeal of his draft conviction. It is possible that she might be more inclined to follow the law here, as this will surely be the most significant case of her career.

A number of the former federal prosecutors that I respect have said they anticipate some J6 indictments soon. It is unclear to me if they think that will include the defendent. It's possible that others are at greater risk, at least in the first round. Of course, I am only speculating, because the public only knows part of what Mr. Smith's investigation uncovered. Based soely on what we heard from the J6 Committee, I think we can all agree that the defendent -- at very least -- violated his oath of office, and openly encouraged the insurrection. But it is not clear if there is enough to get a conviction that would hold up on appeal. A retired military friend has told me he thinks it should be a military trial. I wish.

I still think the Georgia indictment is most likely to come in July. Again, speculation on my part, and I could easily be wrong, even way wrong.

[kentuck]

20. A military trial?

That is an interesting proposition. He was the Commander in Chief and he neglected his duties on January 6th and put many lives at risk.

[H2O Man]

21. Right.

My friend was serious, and explained his thinking in great detail. You have summed it up, right on point.

[Scottie Mom]

15. ...and a time to convict! BRAVO!

Excellent thread!

[H2O Man]

17. Thank you!