This is the maga version of ‘I am not a biologist’

[Horace]

They didn't talk about the legalities involved and I don't actually know what Tapper is talking about, but obviously there's nothing categorically wrong with sending politicians to prison. As anybody invested in sending Trump to prison, or various GOP administration officials upon the next Dem administration, can attest to. It is, in fact, up to the courts, and the lawyers, to decide the legalities, and laypeople's opinions are, in fact, of no consequence.

That said, it's already a done deal that if anybody is convicted of anything, the conclusions drawn will be on strict tribal lines, with some feeling justice was served, while others will feel that the courts are a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump.

[jon-nyc]

The context here is Trump wanting first to execute then to prosecute members of Congress who recite the law according to the uniform code of military justice. Mullin knows that.

[Mik]

What did you expect after the Biden administration spent 2021-2024 persecuting the guy? For him to turn the other cheek? I'm not sure that advocating military disobedience is not a crime.

[jon-nyc]

Telling troops they can’t follow illegal orders is advocating obedience to the law. It’s literally in the uniform code of justice.

It wasn’t just no-billed by the grand jury, it was HELL NO-billed. Literally zero votes to indict. The Trump administration is giving new hope to ham sandwiches everywhere.

And no, Trump being investigated (timidly) for actual crimes doesn’t give him some authority to prosecute congressmen for speech he doesn’t like.

[jon-nyc]

By the way, I first heard of Markwayne Mullin when he was a congressman. He witnessed Ashli ‘terrorkaren’ Babbit getting capped on J6 and called it a clean shot. While he was obviously correct, his lack of a law degree didn’t stop him from commenting then.

[Horace]

The commercial Trump thinks is sedition was performative bait, and Trump played into their hands by reacting as he did. The implication that there are any illegal orders to refuse, is not in evidence, but implications aren't illegal, and reciting law is not illegal. It's a win for the Dems. The legal pushback from the Trump administration has already been batted back by the courts, and now all that's left is the stench in the air of the administration stupidly trying for it. At least the system worked, and the lawyers had their say.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in This is the maga version of ‘I am not a biologist’:

And no, Trump being investigated (timidly) for actual crimes

Still of the opinion that the Biden administration went easy on the Trump prosecutions due to personal honor, and respect for norms? In direct opposition to what their own voters vehemently wanted? All the while calling him a fascist existential threat, yet ignoring legal avenues to stop him? That's what you think happened?

[jon-nyc]

What I think happened is Garland was very protective of his own reputation and went out of his way to not seem too partisan, to the frustration of the Biden White House and the Democratic Party in general.

[Horace]

Even if true, the next dive slightly deeper would indicate that Garland thought there was no legal there there. He was wise to protect his reputation if he knew no prosecution would stick, and even wise not to pursue it, since it would have been red meat for Maga.

[Mik]

So they went to other entities hungry for the fight. That hardly makes it any better.