Clown Court

For anyone interested in politics, this week has been a doozy. 

The Appellate Court of the District of Columbia rendered a damning, and frankly, unimpeachable opinion, neutering The Don’s crusade that presidents should have total immunity. Not that there was any doubt that this was an outrageous claim, but I think his lawyer arguing that a president could request Navy Seal Team 6 to take out an opponent probably sealed the deal. Don’t you think? I mean maybe if they had used a different scenario, like stealing a Kit-Kat from a local bodega as the crime, they may have had a shot. But murder was just a bridge too far.

Here’s what the judges wrote:

“We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct.” To summarize: No impunity by immunity!

The immunity defense is such an absurd canard. The person (the president) whose responsibility it is to enforce the rule of law is allowed to break the laws that he is supposed to enforce. In other words, he can impose his own set of rules. That’s called a dictatorship.

Then the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not The Don could be kept off the ballot in Colorado because of this little thing called an insurrection, which he was found guilty of orchestrating by a jury. 

I happened to have the time to listen to the oral arguments and felt like I was witnessing the legal version of Abbott and Costello’s famous “Who’s on First” comedy routine.

I must admit that I was pretty pessimistic that the judges would affirm Colorado’s decision; that they would finagle their way out of it, as the idea of keeping a candidate off the ballot was a bridge too far.

It seems obvious, but let me remind everyone that what was at issue was the fact that The Don was engaged in an effort to stay in power despite the results of an election. The January 6th “picnic” was just the violent culmination of this process. Leading up to it was spreading false information about voter fraud (The “Big Lie”), creation of fake electors, suggestions of bringing in the military, pressuring the Justice Department to publicly state that the election was corrupt,  pressuring the vice president to not accept the legitimate electors and when Mike Pence refused to do his bidding, The Don seemed sanguine with the rioters hanging him.

Pretty scary and grave stuff. Yet the court stayed as far away from the insurrection question as they could.

Instead we got an absurd discussion about the difference between “office” and “officer.”

Here’s what Abbott and Costell of today might do with this:

Abbott: So he is an office?

Costello: Who’s in the office?

Abbott: The president.

Costello: Is he a public officer?

Abbott: A police officer?

Costello: No, the president.

Abbott: Let me get this straight. So, the president is not a police officer, but an officer without an office? 

Costello: Well, maybe he is an officer but he isn’t a gentleman: 

Abbott: Are we talking about something real, or a movie? Because if we are talking about entertainment, and looking for shows that have the word office in it, I vote for Steve Carell for president.

Then we have the discussion about state’s rights. Do states have the legal right to prevent a candidate from running? From what I could tell from the questioning the answer is no. It’s okay for states to deprive the right of women to control their own bodies; it’s okay for states to prevent people from voting; its okay for states to let people have as many guns as possible without sane regulations; but states having the power to stop a dangerous insurrectionist from being on the ballot? Umm, not so much.

Abbott: Hey Lou (Costello),  what do you think about state’s rights?

Costello: Whose rights?

Abbott: States.

Costello: Can you please state your question, as I have no idea what you are talking about.

Abbott: You know states: New York, New Jersey, California.

Costello: Of course I’ve heard of them. What do you think I’m stupid?

Abbott: So what about states’ rights?

Costello: Umm, I guess New York is al-right, but after that you got me.

Let’s turn to another absurd discussion that claims that even a candidate who has threatened and continues to threaten the very fabric of our democracy can run for election. But, if he wins, Congress can refuse to seat him with a two thirds majority vote. In other words, they can run for office but could be barred from taking office once they are elected. 

Costello: What do you think of that?

Abbott: What?

Costello: That someone could run for office, win, but not be allowed to serve in office.

Abbott: So he wins an office and can’t stay in it?

Costello: Yes, exactly.

Abbott: I think I would wait around for him to get an office and then be evicted from it and then I would move in. 

Costello: Clever Bud. Maybe you should run for president.

Next up: the Supreme Court considers the Don’s last ditch appeal to support his immunity claim. It seems like a pretty straightforward thing from a legal standpoint. But how will the politics of this conservative court play out? Will they dare decide that ruling against him is a bridge too far? If they do…no, they won’t. Right?