About This ‘Burden, Disruption, Stigma, and Distraction’ Claim
[guest post by Dana]
In reading about Trump’s request to stop the sentencing on Friday, this portion caught my eye:
President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to halt his Friday sentencing for his hush money criminal conviction after a New York appeals court judge declined to intervene.
Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency application with the high court early Wednesday after the New York appeals court on Tuesday turned down his request to indefinitely postpone the sentencing.
…
The trial court judge scheduled to sentence Trump on Friday, Justice Juan Merchan, has indicated he doesn’t plan to send Trump to jail and will permit him to attend the proceeding virtually.
…
Still, Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that the sentencing will result in “burden, disruption, stigma, and distraction” to him as he carries out his duties as president-elect.
Heh. As if Trump and his warning threat about possibly using the military to seize the Panama Canal and Greenland (autonomous Danish territory) is *not*, at the least, troubling, and a big distraction and disruption to our allies’ sense of security with us.
Frankly, these threats only add to the stigma of Trump being an indiscreet blowhard on the world stage, making indefensible claims and upsetting the balance in relationships with important allies. While we know that, ultimately, his talk is silly talk, one shouldn’t simply blow it off as if he wouldn’t try to do the absurd during his tenure. So, words matter. And every word that a sitting President (and the President-elect) utters, matters. Trump is not a private citizen, and as his lawyers say, he is now carrying out his duties as president-elect. Thus, everything that comes out of his mouth matters, and has either a direct or indirect impact on Americans, and, as in this case, on world friends upon whom we depend. Leaders from Panama and Greenland have rejected Trump’s demands:
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told Danish TV that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders” and that only the local population could determine its future.
She said “Greenland is not for sale”, but stressed Denmark needed close co-operation with the US, a Nato ally.
…
“The sovereignty of our canal is not negotiable and is part of our history of struggle,” Foreign Minister Javier Martinez-Acha said, adding that President Jose Raul Mulino had made his stance clear.
But you know who welcomes Trump’s rhetoric/threat concerning Greenland and Panama? That’s right: Russia. And China.
Bolton said he’s concerned that Trump’s language could “have a further ramification, based on what Trump said today about declining to rule out the use of force.”
“That’s exactly the same position Xi Jinping has on Taiwan. So I could easily imagine Xi Jinping saying, ‘Look, I perfectly well understand Greenland’s close to the United States. Taiwan’s close to us. Trump won’t rule out the use of force on Greenland. Exactly our position. We won’t rule it out on Taiwan.’”
Bolton said Putin, who directed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago, could point to Trump’s rhetoric as justifying his actions.
“Or Vladimir Putin could say, ‘Look, I certainly understand that. Ukraine is critical to our national security. We are using force. And, you know, frankly, if the United States invaded Greenland — which, by the way, has U.S. troops stationed there today — I, Vladimir Putin, wouldn’t oppose that.’”
“It shows Trump, again, not understanding the broader context that his remarks are made in, and the harmful consequences that this is having all across NATO right now,” Bolton said.
Anyway, I got hung up at the absurd claims made by Trump’s lawyers. It reminded me that everything a President (and President-elect) says, matters. Words matter. Greatly.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (a8e964) — 1/8/2025 @ 12:41 pmMore on Trump’s request to avoid sentencing:
More:
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/8/2025 @ 1:24 pmThat’s exactly right. After his irresponsible rhetoric, what grounds would Trump have to oppose China invading Taiwan? Does he say “I was just joking”?
Even Trump lover and banned commenter DCSCA drew the line at Taiwan.
norcal (a72384) — 1/8/2025 @ 1:27 pmPutin: “Trump get Greenland, I get Ukraine, and Moldova, and Georgia, and Kazakhstan, and TBD.”
Paul Montagu (9795c9) — 1/8/2025 @ 1:57 pmXi: “Trump get Panama Canal, I get Taiwan, and Nepal, and Bhutan, and that area between Nepal and Bhutan, and all of South China Sea, and mebbe Okinawa.”
Dana:
I think Trump believes that words matter. He’s trying to persuade, cajole, or drown out unpleasentness, or gaslight.
It’s the truth that doesn’t matter.
Appalled (6da2ae) — 1/8/2025 @ 2:03 pmI’m of two minds about this.
One, I utterly reject the idea that some people should get preferences when it comes to legal process.
The other is that I have always viewed this particular prosecution as cynical and political. Literally 1 misdemeanor “Trumped up” to 33 felonies, and using a specious legal theory (that paying blackmail is a campaign donation) as a basis.
Trump’s proper legal option is to continue to appeal the entire thing, expecting it to be vacated. Trying to get some special process though is a pretty ugly attempt at privilege.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/8/2025 @ 2:29 pm@4: Go after Truman now, who wanted Greenland too. He didn’t get it, but Stalin still got Eastern Europe and Mao got China on his watch.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/8/2025 @ 2:31 pmDid Truman hint at military action to take Greenland, or just ask if the U.S. could buy Greenland? There is a big difference.
norcal (a72384) — 1/8/2025 @ 3:11 pmTruman asked, but secretly (a secret kept for 45 years). Also, Truman asked in ’46, before there was a NATO. Later, the Danes allowed military access to the island.
It’s really not an apt comparison, mostly because Truman handled it responsibly, not like some childish bully swinging his little knob around.
Paul Montagu (9795c9) — 1/8/2025 @ 3:48 pm6. I would agree that it should play out if the government hadn’t filed multiple suspect, one might say meritless, felony charges in multiple cases, against a leading presidential candidate.
One for possessing “classified” records that another candidate also had in his garage but for which he was not prosecuted. That one also featured a fully above board demand to Trump for return from the Natl Archives, (the place that wants trigger warnings on the Constitution, so they’re impartial). And Archives never made that kind of demand to anyone else.
Another because after Trump repaid a loan on time, but the lending bank might have been misled, even though it said it wasn’t.
Another for paying off a porn star although the disclsoure of the payment would have been made post election, and would have had the weight of a feather in an election.
So the prosecutions smell like a 5 day old fish. Call it a day.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 1/8/2025 @ 4:01 pmIt’s really not an apt comparison, mostly because Truman handled it responsibly, not like some childish bully swinging his little knob around.
But he still lost Eastern Europe and China. Nearly lost Korea, too
Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/8/2025 @ 4:19 pmBut he still lost Eastern Europe and China.
There was no saving China. The Nationalists in China were every bit as feckless and corrupt as the South Vietnamese government was in the 60s and 70s.
The Chinese Nationalists cleaned up their act years after fleeing to Taiwan, but by then it was too late.
norcal (a72384) — 1/8/2025 @ 4:47 pmBiden can be prosecuted for mishandling classified information beginning January 21st. It’s been longstanding DOJ policy (since 1973) that a sitting President is immune from indictment.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/8/2025 @ 4:48 pmIt’s disingenuous to say a particular President caused the “loss” of a specific country. Unlike the Greek gods, presidents cannot snap their fingers and change world events. To say Truman “lost Eastern Europe” ignores the fact that Russian troops occupied those countries before Truman became President.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/8/2025 @ 4:57 pmAgain, it’s disingenuous to say Truman, or anyone else, “lost China.” It would have taken hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to change the outcome of the Chinese Civil War, an unlikely prospect after just ending a global war. In addition, such an action would have given carte blanche to the Soviets in Europe. If the US military had been involved in China, it likely the Berlin Blockade would have succeeded, as there would have been no American transport aircraft to supply West Berlin.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/8/2025 @ 5:35 pmUnfortunately for Biden, the newly identified “presidential immunity defense” won’t prevent his indictment for mishandling classified information. He was vice president when he obtained the classified documents and he continued to possess them as a private citizen before he became president.
Rip Murdock (9bda50) — 1/8/2025 @ 8:52 pmnorcal at 3: none.
and since we’re almost certainly going to withdraw from NATO and Trump is saber rattling about taking some NATO territory, perhaps the US, China, and Russian could simply partition the rest of NATO like it were eighteenth century Poland?
aphrael (dbf41f) — 1/8/2025 @ 9:44 pmaphrael (dbf41f) — 1/8/2025 @ 9:44 pm
I predict the world will be worse off at the end of Trump’s term. Fans of Trump will find a way to shift the blame to someone/something else.
I would love to be wrong.
norcal (a72384) — 1/8/2025 @ 10:42 pmMy understanding of the SCOTUS decision is that Presidents have absolute criminal immunity for official acts under core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. So it is not correct for Trump’s attorney to claim that Trump “will be completely immune from all criminal process, state or federal,” let alone that a President-elect is similarly immune.
DRJ (c18050) — 1/9/2025 @ 8:36 am13: Its been an even LONGER policy of the United States that we don’t prosecute presidents. Not FDR for putting people in camps; Truman for seizing stell mills in an totally unconstitutional act (youngstown Sheet & Tube), not LBJ for lying about the Gulf of Tonkin episode, for ussing the IRS to audit opponents, like Nixon, and for pulling on his dog’s ears, not Bill Clinton for perjury in a depositon . . .
Yes no one is above the law, etc., but there are good historical reasons not to do this and for 200 plus years, we avoided it. It needs to stop.
(I agree with this message -J. Caesar)
Harcourt F. Mudd (0c349e) — 1/9/2025 @ 1:28 pmlol… Trump’s unconditionally discharge sentence after SCOTUS “but you said you would” to locked Merchan into his stated inclination to give Trump a unconditional discharge sentence. (until the SCOTUS ruling, Merchan always had the ability to change his mind and sentence Trump with some sort of penalty. I wagered it’d be a fine).
Now, he can appeal through normal channels that’ll probably take 1-2 years to resolve.
What a whimper…
whembly (477db6) — 1/10/2025 @ 7:32 am#21
I think there is bipartisan agreement on that.
Appalled (59f46e) — 1/10/2025 @ 7:38 am