They obviously have Trump and this poor sucker, Nauta, dead to rights. It is all so petty, so corrupt, so much below the dignity of a former president. I am reminded of the next to last chapter of the three volume trilogy Lord of the Rings. Saruman and Grima Wormtongue, having been reduced from their high positions, come to the Shire as wandering mountebanks, doing cheap tricks to terrify the hobbits. Frodo and his companions return and drive them out.
In a purely random process, the worst possible judge has been chosen to hear the case. I am not sure that is such a bad thing. If she does anything even slightly unjudicial In the months leading up to the actual trial, I think she will probably get sanctioned by appeals court judges and even removed from the case.
In the two months before the Georgia case comes to indictments, I think it is quite possible that Jack Smith will bring charges in the January 6 case. I really hope I live long enough to see how this plays out.
8 comments:
Prof. Wolff, as a non-admirer of Kissinger, someone who perhaps also deserved indictment, you may find the following assessment of him by Stephen Walt of interest:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/09/henry-kissinger-birthday-reputation-foreign-policy/
Best wishes, rm
As has been pointed out by others, having this judge is a good thing because it will decrease the credibility of Trump's inevitable claims that he is being treated unfairly. The response is: "You appointed this judge yourself."
rm
At the risk of bragging, I can almost predict the Stephen Walt column without having read it yet. Walt's basic charge will be that Kissinger violated his own "realist" precepts.
LFC, I think you got that a bit wrong. rm
Ok I'll have to read the column then!
I've read the Walt piece. I'll be fairly brief bc this is off-topic from the post.
First, what Walt does not say: he does not call K. a war criminal and does not use the language of morality. He says K's actions re Vietnam/Cambodia and E.Pakistan/Bangladesh and Chile "merit harsh assessment." That's a pretty antiseptic way of referring to actions that, in the case of Cambodia and Bangladesh, gave rise to and/or supported what amts to genocide. But then Walt wd not use that language bc Walt doesn't roll that way, plus he's writing in Foreign Policy.
On the main question -- what accounts for K's reputation? -- the piece seems to me shrewd and probably right. K likely is the greatest networker of all time.
Finally, I'm somewhat surprised that Walt says that K's memoirs are rivaled only by Acheson's Present at the Creation. I think most people wd also have mentioned Kennan's Memoirs, which iirc won the Pulitzer Prize.
LFC
Kennan won the Pulitzer at least twice: Biography for his Memoirs and History for Russia Leaves the War. Acheson won it for History.
Back to the topic:
I'm not sure how much control the Appeals Court can have over a trial judge at the trial stage in any way that can help the prosecution other than allowing for appeal of questions of law. But my guess is that Cannon will have wide latitude, e.g. in allowing or disallowing specific questions to witnesses, and there won't be much that Jack Smith can do about it. That said, although I practiced law for more than 40 years, I never was involved in criminal case.
Post a Comment