After anguishing for several weeks about the New York Times poll showing Trump beating Biden in 5 out of 6 battleground states, commentators turned their attention on Tuesday night to yet another series of Democratic Party victories in local off year elections and ballot initiatives. The endless television commentary about these events almost entirely ignored what I remain convinced is the single most important factor, after abortion, in the upcoming election cycle: the outcome of the first of a series of trials of Trump at the federal and state levels.
Judge Chutkan has made it clear that she will not move the March 4th date for the beginning of the trial in DC, and has even scheduled jury selection for the weeks prior to that time to make sure that the trial can begin on her date specified. Some while ago, Jack Smith announced that the prosecution’s case would take from 4 to 6 weeks, so sometime in late April, we can expect the prosecution's lead litigator to announce “Your Honor, the prosecution rests.”
It is not clear at that point what sort of case the defense can put on, because they cannot argue that Trump truly believed he had won the election without putting him on the stand, and everyone seems to agree that would be a disaster for the defense. Nevertheless, one way or another, by early or middle May the case will go to the jury. I think we can project that by early June they will come back with a verdict. If, as I expect, the verdict is guilty on some or all of the counts, the Republican party will be faced with the prospect of convening its July presidential nominating convention with Trump having won enough delegates to take the nomination and having been found guilty in the most important trial facing him.
At that point, the Republican Party will have an impossible choice: to nominate Trump while they await his sentencing or perhaps await the carrying out of the sentence already handed down, or to change their rules on the spot to avoid nominating him, with all of the attendant chaos that would produce.
The same New York Times poll that showed Trump beating Biden
in 5 out of 6 battleground states also asked the question “if Trump is
convicted of one or more of his charged crimes, how would you vote,” and something
like 6% of the Trump voters announced that they would then vote for Biden,
giving him victory in all of the battleground states.
We have a long year ahead of us and I for one will give as much
money as I can to the Democratic legislative campaign committee, to support
Democrats in local races across the country, but I really do think the odds are
very strongly in Biden’s favor.
35 comments:
Hillary recently made a comment on the destruction of the USA if Trump gets reelected.
BTW, "The Guardian has published an article about the lawsuit Marc Susselman filed this week relating to the Hamtramck resolution." See #10 of MS's comments with link here:
a href="http://michael.www2.50megs.com">"http://michael.www2.50megs.com"
A star is born.
And he/it already has a publicist. Pro bono, no doubt.
Poor RPW. Having tried to prevent someone from regularly hijacking his blog he now finds that that same someone is intruding via a back door. Who will rid me of this troublesome lawyer?
Don't look at me.... I'm just a kibbitzer (as opposed to a kibbutznik).
Is Susselman really that poisonous?
The ex-communication of Spinoza. Not that Susselman is a philosophical genius like Spinoza, but really I don't see the problem with Michael Llenos linking to what he has to say. I had always imagined, incorrectly it seems, like philosophers were especially open-minded.
The Text of Spinoza's Excommunication
On the 6th of the month of Av, 5416, July 27, 1656, the excommunication of Baruch de Spinoza was proclaimed from the Ark in the synagogue of Talmud Torah, the united congregation of the Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam. The complete version of the proclamation, written in Portuguese, is found in the Book of Ordinances of the congregation (Livro dos Acordos de Nacao e Ascamot) and it includes some highly interesting details:
"The Lords of the Ma'amad", i.e. the governing body of six parnassim and the gabbai, announce that
"having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza, they have endeavored by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of this matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable hakhamim, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel..."
The "hakhamim," namely the official rabbis of the community, with whose consent the resolution was made to excommunicate the "said Espinoza," were familiar with thetraditional wording of the proclamations of excommunication and excerpts of these onventional formulations were incorporated in the announcement of Spinoza's excommunication:
"By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day."
The proclamation of the excommunication concludes with the following famous lines of the actual warning:
"That no one should communicate with him neither in writing nor accord him any favor nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits in his vicinity; nor shall he read any treatise composed or written by him."
I think there's just far too little certainty about any of this to be able to make good predictions.
It seems right that if Trump is convicted in any of his cases, that's bad for him in the general election but good for him in the primary. The Republicans will rally around him as a persecuted martyr. The base of the Republican party is so thoroughly captured by Trump that no one can win in a Republican primary who goes against him. So, Republicans being invariably self-interested and cowardly, there won't be any serious effort to pull off a last second miracle at the nominating convention.
But will he be convicted? If convicted, will he be imprisoned? If convicted, will the negative effect of his conviction on his electoral prospects be enough to bring about Biden's victory?
It seems to me all of this is far too murky for anyone to say.
"Is Susselman really that poisonous?
"The ex-communication of Spinoza. Not that Susselman is a philosophical genius like Spinoza, but really I don't see the problem with Michael Llenos linking to what he has to say. I had always imagined, incorrectly it seems, like philosophers were especially open-minded."
Oh for crying out loud. Nobody "excommunicated" Susselman because he trafficked in verboten ideas. He was banned because he was incapable of acting like an adult. A petulant child will usually learn their lesson after being made to stand in the corner for a few minutes. Not Susselman. He was warned but would always return ever more abusive, self-righteous, and incapable (or unwilling) to grasp the simplest points made by his intellectual betters here.
Some of his most vicious insults, as I recall, have been levelled against you, s.w. It beggars belief that you defend him.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-extreme-ambitions-of-west-bank-settlers
GJ,
"Susselman was banned because he was incapable of acting like an adult".
I have no doubt that before Spinoza was excommunicated, one or two elders drew him aside and asked "Baruch, can't you grow up"?
I was a very contrarian child, teenager and young adult (not as abusive as Susselman, but a wise guy with a big mouth, unsparing in my criticism of whatever happened to be the status quo) and I was expelled, suspended, banned, asked politely to leave, asked not so politely to leave, fired, not called again, disqualified and insulted, dropped by and from more institutions, schools, jobs and social circles than I'll bore you with naming.
One thing I learned on the journey was that being adult means paying lip service to and playing by the rules of whatever the hegemonic status quo is, which by no means signifies that there is something particularly "good" or "noble" about any given hegemonic status quo. Finally, I learned to pay lip service to and play by the rules of the hegemonic status quo, more out of tiredness than out of any other motives. It simplifies life.
Susselman, who can be very abusive, got some very interesting discussions going in this blog and I give him credit for that.
You say it beggars belief that I defend Susselman after receiving his vicious insults. Every time I protest against Israeli war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, I receive an email from Susselman, at times arguing with me, at times insulting me, at times with insults that I will not repeat in this space where children and ladies may be present.
Am I supposed to bear a grudge against him forever?
I've considered blocking him in gmail, but I will not. He does not harm me, at times I learn something from him and my life would be poorer without his presence. I believe that this blog is poorer without his presence too.
More valuable information from Juan Cole about Israel's devastation of Gaza and the Hamas atrocity in Israel:
https://www.juancole.com/2023/11/preemies-imaginary-beheadings.html
This blog is sullied by the gratuitous reintroduction of Marc Susselman's name and news, the very mention of whom brings back the intemperate, vicious, obnoxious tone of his insults. He was banished for good reason by its host whose guests we all are. It would behoove all who comment here to respect this ostracism. You have clearly found other venues for communicating with him.
It would seem that this blog, albeit impoverished now, still serves your needs, Mr. Wallerstein.
dicecero,
As long as I have the unique pleasure and privilege of hearing from people like you, this blog more than serves my needs.
I don't believe Marc Susselman was acting like a child, but rather voicing passionately some of his beliefs. Beliefs that can get you cancelled if before the wrong people & before the wrong audience.
And I hate to break this to his detractors, but there are no signs on the main page of Dr. RPW's website that say if you have some conservative values, that you are not allowed a tolerant hearing of voicing your opinions here. I've noticed that voicing any bit of RED belief will bring the sharks & their eating frenzy to roost. (Only a few moderate voices like SW being the exception).
Of course, some may say it's really tit for tat since conservatives do this on their websites too. But I have this to say: two wrongs don't make a right, just as two rights don't make a wrong. And although respect is earned, anyone can give it out for free.
1. Regularly insulting of other commentators ('Anti-Semite!' 'Sophist!' 'Apologist for Putin!'). 2. Word Count! 3. Regularly 'commenting' (and see #2 above) on topics unrelated to the professor's post: perhaps better would be no tats and no tits.--I've been dipping into Peter Brown's autobiography Journeys of the Mind. The most stimulating thing has been learning that Brown now prefers Origen to Augustine and, having just read the chapter on Origen in Brown's The Body and Society, I can understand why. Brown devotes a chapter to his discussions with Michel Foucault in the early 1980s, and there describes with astonishment and admiration how Foucault, after some discussion of a topic would ask for his interlocutor's views, and then just listen with rapt attention at whatever length the interlocutor wished to speak. Foucault did this with Brown, and he would also do it routinely with the lowliest undergraduate. My own little experience of chatting with geniuses (Vito Acconci and John Zorn come to mind) was exactly the same as Brown's with Foucault. We non-geniuses might learn from and emulate this behavior.
Apologies for this somewhat on-topic post but Trump continues to decompensate. Perhaps we luck out and the foaming starts a couple of weeks before the election.
"Former President Donald Trump pledged to eliminate political extremist groups that “lie, steal and cheat on elections,” calling them “vermin” during a speech Saturday and in a Truth Social post commemorating Veterans Day—echoing a term Nazis often used in antisemitic propaganda to dehumanize Jews, equating them to parasites who spread disease."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/11/12/trump-compares-political-foes-to-vermin-on-veterans-day-echoing-nazi-propaganda/?sh=795227b37229
JR
By "word count" do you mean Marc is loquacious? When was being talkative a crime? For those who consider this virtue as childlike, I would say that the opposite of talking much is a vice. Many people seem to get angry at those who talk too little or not a lot. Those who write a lot, or communicate a lot, or speak a lot are considered the most intelligent and the most highly educated.
@aaall
Trump isn't "decompensating," just doing what he's been doing for a while. And since history is not his forte, he may not even get the undertones or the subtext of "vermin."
Without an actual clinical diagnosis, it's almost impossible to tell whether Trump is acting unconsciously, or calculatingly for his base, with any given utterance. I speculate what the circumstances would have to be that would force a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, whether he or his attorneys would agree or object, and how the results might affect ongoing prosecutions, both legally and politically.
LFC, if you compare how he presents now with a few years ago it becomes obvious that something is going on. Given his age and general appearance, I vote one way while you choose another. We will see.
Come on, Michael. Can't you remember all those lengthy screeds he used to post here, pretty much all to the point of what he had decided he was interested in and responding, as JR noted, in a most offensive fashion to everyone who indicated the slightest disagreement with him. Were you around, for example, when he just went on in the most unpleasant and repeatedly lengthy fashion when it was pointed out to him that he had misunderstood a few words from a Shakespeare play? It all had to be about him and he was always right.
To verge back onto the subtopic: wasn't there something a bit trumpian about his inability to treat others as humans deserving of respect, about his taking every alternative point of view as an assault upon himself. I guess that's why I'm glad he's no longer with us. If only we could banish his doppelganger too. That would make this awful world a little bit more tolerable.
"Am I supposed to bear a grudge against him forever?"
Yes.
"I don't believe Marc Susselman was acting like a child, but rather voicing passionately some of his beliefs. Beliefs that can get you cancelled if before the wrong people & before the wrong audience. And I hate to break this to his detractors, but there are no signs on the main page of Dr. RPW's website that say if you have some conservative values, that you are not allowed a tolerant hearing of voicing your opinions here."
You can't be serious. Susselman was given a tolerant hearing, and he wasn't banned because of his beliefs or his passionate defence of them. He was banned because he behaved like an asshole. He viciously insulted anyone who would disagree with him.
anon.
It's all in the eye of the beholder. We are finite beings with a finite perspective. If that's not true then why isn't there a 100% unanimous outcry against MS? We all have our own opinion. It's called the First Amendment which includes the Freedom of Speech. But maybe that's out of fashion these days. People will participate in some sort of cancel culture one day but pretend later on that cancel culture was never used.
It's like a CODE RED. Why can't people admit when they wrongly commit wrongs?
Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee: "Did you or did you not wrongly cancel culture Attorney Marc Susselman from the Philosopher's Stone?"
Colonel Nathan R. Jessep: "I did damn it! I wrongly cancel cultured him!"
Michael Llenos:
“By ‘word count’ do you mean Marc is loquacious? When was being talkative a crime? For those who consider this virtue as childlike, I would say that the opposite of talking much is a vice. Many people seem to get angry at those who talk too little or not a lot. Those who write a lot, or communicate a lot, or speak a lot are considered the most intelligent and the most highly educated.”
A. And B. below are from Merriam Webster
A. Synonyms of loquacious
1: full of excessive talk : WORDY
2: given to fluent or excessive talk : GARRULOUS
Childlike' vs. 'Childish'
The words have very different connotations
Childish and childlike initially meant nearly the same thing: “resembling or suggesting a child.”
'Childlike' is generally used in a positive or neutral way. 'Childish'...not so much.
Childish is the older term, dating to Old English from before the 12th century. To the original neutral meaning (“of a child or typical of a child”), a second one with negative connotations began to be used in the 1400s, referring to the qualities of a child in a person who is no longer a child—and therefore should know better: “having or showing the unpleasant qualities (such as silliness or lack of maturity) that children often have.”
another childish rant
selfish and childish behavior
Childlike entered the language much later, in the mid-1500s. It, by contrast, usually connotes some positive quality such as innocence, trustfulness, or ingenuousness:
a childlike delight in music
a sense of childlike wonder
B. The most wondrous of your observations, Michael, is that intelligence can be measured by the amount of verbal output!
There are no “cancel culture” issues at play here, Michael. MS may well be super informed on a vast array of topics. But his manner is so offensive that he has been disinvited from this site by its host. This is not a public forum , but rather a private venue. Good manners mandate that all who visit here respect that ruling and abide by it. Period.
"The most wondrous of your observations, Michael, is that intelligence can be measured by the amount of verbal output!"
Not in every instance. But the more verbal output is usually a sign of greater intelligence among one's peers.
I think GJ @7:15 p.m. has captured the matter quite well. I remember a few of my exchanges with Marc Susselman. In many of these exchanges I think (naturally enough) that I was right and he was wrong, but I'll pick one where he had a strong argument/position, in order to show that he was gratuitously insulting even when he had a strong argument and didn't need to be insulting at all.
It was the thread about whether Trump could introduce or convey or show his alleged beliefs about the 2020 election in federal court without taking the stand himself, and the discussion, prompted by the OP, got into the issue of hearsay and related matters. Marc pointed out, correctly, that Trump as defendant has no burden of proof to show anything and therefore the premise of the OP's questions was dubious. But not content with making a correct observation, Marc gratuitously insulted me. He did not say "I think your memory of the Federal Rules of Evidence is very hazy"; he did not even say "I am a trial lawyer and you are not, and therefore I am much better positioned to discuss these matters than you are" -- which, while blunt, would have been within the bounds of acceptable discourse.
No. What Marc said to me, among other things, was "you do not know what you are talking about" and "you do not know the Federal Rules of Evidence." Now it may well be true that I have forgotten roughly 80 or 85 or even 90 percent of what I once knew about the Federal Rules of Evidence (and I once knew them quite well, since my first job out of law school in the 1980s brought me into close contact with them, albeit not as a courtroom practitioner), but to say, in a flat, completely unqualified way, that "you do not know the Federal Rules of Evidence" was false and, frankly, defamatory. And not at all atypical of the way Marc conducted himself here. He never, or almost never, admitted that he might be wrong about anything, whether it was something within his expertise or not. He was always right; his interlocutor was always wrong, and ignorant into the bargain. I recall only one flash of humor that might (at a stretch) be construed as slightly self-deprecating, which came at the end of a long exchange about Marx. In short, he was banned for the reasons GJ indicates.
And Michael Llenos, if you want to host MS on your site, that's of course fine. But notions of "cancellation" don't apply here. This blog is not a public forum (in the legal sense) open to anyone who wants to say anything. Like virtually all blogs, it's a site run by a person (or persons), and we're all here at that person's pleasure.
P.s. I see Dececero already made the point about this not being a public forum -- sorry for the repetition.
Michael Llenos:
For what it's worth, Prof. Wolff asked Marc to leave for a reason, and whether you sympathize with the reason or not, I think at this point it's disrespectful to him as a blog owner to persist in arguing the decision. Also, if I were in Prof. Wolff's position, I would find the continued references and links regarding an unwelcome commenter (whom we're all perfectly free to discuss and interact with outside the blog) to be pretty tiresome - and might even find myself regretting the fact that this blog has a comments section at all (yet again!).
We should bear in mind that we're all guests here, just as a matter of courtesy and gratitude to someone who takes the time to share their valuable work online (and does so for free). This has nothing to do with being intellectually open-minded, being a good philosopher or a good anarchist, etc.
-Michael (a different Michael)
To all who fumed,
I consider Marc my friend, so I won't abandon him to the wolves--even if that means I am overcome by many & must make a fighting retreat. Fine. All of you are perfect, and me and Marc ain't. I get it! I don't know, though, in what spirit you have banished Marc? Because banish him you did. Whether it was by complaining about his supposed unfair treatment of you to Dr. Wolff, or whether it was by unsuccessfully silencing Marc's unwelcome conservatism that you automatically despised. Unsuccessful it was since Marc was unwavering in his opinions & point of view.
So if it was in a spirit of Lycon, or Anytus, or Meletus I don't know in which man or beast it was. You disliked him and you kicked him out. Don't sugarcoat your actions for others & for yourselves. But to be fair you should all have your say just as I have had my say. I believe you are all honorable men.
"Fine. All of you are perfect, and me and Marc ain't. I get it! I don't know, though, in what spirit you have banished Marc?"
Sigh. It's like you haven't read any of the posts here by me, LFC, anon., etc. There's nothing arcane or tricky about this: he was banned because he repeatedly insulted his interlocutors. He would have been banned from any closely moderated comments section years ago. Leiter would have banned him immediately.
"...silencing Marc's unwelcome conservatism."
Nobody did this. And he's not that conservative anyway.
"I believe you are all honorable men."
Et tu? Shark jump?
As I recall the precipitating event was a couple of members of the bar exchanging rather strong opinions on the professional qualifications of each other followed by one entering a cease and desist post with the implications of further action. I assume at that point enough became too much and here we are.
Meanwhile the IN likely has a sub or two with nuclear capabilities cruising around the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf.
BTW, speciest slurs aside, the Yellowstone ecosystem has benefited greatly from the reintroduction of wolves. There is a pack or so that has made its way into Northern California and I look forward to some new neighbors.
Just to be clear, Michael, I did not cancel anyone for cultural or any other reason. Further, since it’s an interpersonal situation, and since none of us, so far as I know, is acting in a governmental or Congressional fashion, I fail to see what the First Amendment has to do with it. I, as did others, did, however, try to call him out for his abusive behaviour and for the way he repeatedly acted in a domineering fashion. And finally, as I understand it, RPW decided he’d had enough. In fact, he’d blocked him before and then relented on the expectation of better behaviour. But all too soon MS was back to his usual bad behaviour. And RPW responded, I think quite correctly, by informing him that since he was not complying with the conversational tone he, RPW, was seeking to maintain on this blog, he was no longer welcome
I think most people who come to this blog appreciate serious conversation about serious things. And there have been quite a number of vigorous disagreements about difficult issues. But what I, and perhaps others got upset by was that one just couldn’t have a serious debate about many matters so long as MS was behaving in his customary obstreperous ways.
While I’m at it, please consider refraining from calling his critics “wolves” or accusing them/us of despising him or anyone else for their views. Further, as GJ told you, we were all well aware that MS did not consider or present himself as a conservative. It was pretty clear he was a rather mainstream Democrat who along the way had aligned himself with a few more left of centre causes. So please don’t continue to try to make out that all this is something it has never been.
Now can we get back to reality—awful as it is, it’s still important. And this is all quite a trivial distraction.
aaall is absolutely correct, Trump is continuing to decompensate though the only times one ever sees this in action is at his campaign rallies and TS posts. Most media doesn't cover them.
As to the polls showing Biden deep in the hole in several "battleground states" they are totally meaningless and the coverage they get is blown out of all proportion. The horse race bit is ridiculous at this point in time, and there is good reason to be skeptical of all polls given the number of failures in recent elections. The measure to pay attention to at this point is the generic congressional ballot question which puts the race at a dead heat (0.4% to the blue).
As to M.S., he is arrogant, abusive, and ignorant of social and political theory. There is no good reason to bring his name into our discussion on this blog his having been barred by our host.
Nakba 2:
https://www.juancole.com/2023/11/describes-catastrophic-cleansing.html
Post a Comment