Hi Asha, I agree with you that it was "a colossal failure in judgment on Willis’ part". I don't understand why she didn't explicitly anticipate that Trump would tell his lackeys to find dirt on her or any hint of dirt cause that's who he is and that's what he does. He plays dirty. I thought everyone knew that.
Sorry for the delayed commentary, but as always, excellent insight. A particularly interesting point is the refusal to use the term "hush money trial"....it may be an exciting (lurid and tawdry?!) term that sells newspapers (20 plus years ago...and now invite "clicks" I must remember!), but the fact of the matter is that it is leading. Journalism's objective is objectivity itself (thus eliminating Fox entirely from the competition due to hours of unabashed opinion coupled with heavy "Conservative" emphasis). Unfortunately, too many writer's adopt the headline grabber to get the scandal-seeker National Enquirer crowd at tshe expense of integrity. Judge Cannon needs to go. She throws small bones to Jack Smith in an effort to maintain an appearance of objectivity to the public, but everyone needs to view this with a great deal of skepticism. The Justice Department remains excessively patient in an effort to appease right-wingers, but they will never be satisfied. SC Smith can only be patient for so long with the table scraps. Early on, I thought how Merrick Garland was not seated on the Supreme Court was fortuitous because he was fated to lead the Justice Department....unfortunately, he seems excessively methodical to the point of serious fault by appeasing right-wingers. The right-wing, as reflected by the representatives in Congress, will never be satisfied with anything, and to try to win favor with them is a fool's errand. Leadership is entirely regressive. Garland won't be fired at this point during an election year and while he is involved in cases against a leading candidate, but in the event Biden wins against Trump (I can't believe I have to say that in 2024), the new Administration will not include Garland. Think nice thoughts, everyone! Let none of us allow the toxicity bring own hopes down.
I'm with you on the opinion that Wade should have dropped out long ago, when this first came up. Willis needs the whole country to TRUST what she is doing. Letting a National Enquirer (remember them?) sex story interfere just muddies the water, as it was intended to do. Simply saying "we are no longer involved, and there was no actual impropriety in anything we did, but we need to concentrate of the actual bad stuff the DEFENDANTS did" would have squelched that opposition intention. I can understand her need to actually push it to a place where she had to DEFEND herself--she was much maligned and the emotional need to FIGHT rather than fold is with us all. But that it went this far just increased the mud, which will still be hard to shake off.
Enjoyed the smorgasbord of topics on the pod this week. Can't believe you hung up on Renato like that though! 🤣 Apparently admissions officers also have "absolute immunity" - who knew??
As always, Asha, thanks for keeping us up to date. Can't tell the trial cases without an explainer (to update a phrase!). A question maybe for office hours: Assuming. SCOTUS isn't crazy in taking presidential immunity case just to rule 9-0 against, might it be that they make a 'theory ruling', i.e., yes it is possible that a president is immune from prosecution for committing a crime while acting w/in his duly constituted role as president (Obama and executive authority to assassinate Americans deemed threats) while not making a specific ruling as to Constitutionality in this case? In essence, delay (Trump is happy) and punt back to Chutkan to rule on constitutionality of this act (further delay) which can then be appealed to Circuit and ultimately back to SCOTUS.
All I can say is I’m glad to see both of you and hear your real voices. And I, too, wanted to know about that last question. But choosing who to admit has to be incredibly challenging. Meanwhile, I’m getting super anxious about AI-generated content. Thanks for the update in this confusing time.
“ sometimes we don’t act rationally in matters of the heart…” Agree. The Hunter Biden saga, Ivanka & Jared and others are examples of acting within the law but violating public trust. We can quibble about intent and severity but the end result is a violation of public trust. “Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain” Do better.
Hi Asha, I agree with you that it was "a colossal failure in judgment on Willis’ part". I don't understand why she didn't explicitly anticipate that Trump would tell his lackeys to find dirt on her or any hint of dirt cause that's who he is and that's what he does. He plays dirty. I thought everyone knew that.
Now there are two outliers.
Sorry for the delayed commentary, but as always, excellent insight. A particularly interesting point is the refusal to use the term "hush money trial"....it may be an exciting (lurid and tawdry?!) term that sells newspapers (20 plus years ago...and now invite "clicks" I must remember!), but the fact of the matter is that it is leading. Journalism's objective is objectivity itself (thus eliminating Fox entirely from the competition due to hours of unabashed opinion coupled with heavy "Conservative" emphasis). Unfortunately, too many writer's adopt the headline grabber to get the scandal-seeker National Enquirer crowd at tshe expense of integrity. Judge Cannon needs to go. She throws small bones to Jack Smith in an effort to maintain an appearance of objectivity to the public, but everyone needs to view this with a great deal of skepticism. The Justice Department remains excessively patient in an effort to appease right-wingers, but they will never be satisfied. SC Smith can only be patient for so long with the table scraps. Early on, I thought how Merrick Garland was not seated on the Supreme Court was fortuitous because he was fated to lead the Justice Department....unfortunately, he seems excessively methodical to the point of serious fault by appeasing right-wingers. The right-wing, as reflected by the representatives in Congress, will never be satisfied with anything, and to try to win favor with them is a fool's errand. Leadership is entirely regressive. Garland won't be fired at this point during an election year and while he is involved in cases against a leading candidate, but in the event Biden wins against Trump (I can't believe I have to say that in 2024), the new Administration will not include Garland. Think nice thoughts, everyone! Let none of us allow the toxicity bring own hopes down.
Asha, congratulations to the Bulldogs 🏀⛹🏽♂️. The madness has begun. I for one need the distraction right now. 🙏
I'm with you on the opinion that Wade should have dropped out long ago, when this first came up. Willis needs the whole country to TRUST what she is doing. Letting a National Enquirer (remember them?) sex story interfere just muddies the water, as it was intended to do. Simply saying "we are no longer involved, and there was no actual impropriety in anything we did, but we need to concentrate of the actual bad stuff the DEFENDANTS did" would have squelched that opposition intention. I can understand her need to actually push it to a place where she had to DEFEND herself--she was much maligned and the emotional need to FIGHT rather than fold is with us all. But that it went this far just increased the mud, which will still be hard to shake off.
These distractions have us on pins and needles-I’d like to order a dozen Ottawa Apples..And make each a double, please! :)
Enjoyed the smorgasbord of topics on the pod this week. Can't believe you hung up on Renato like that though! 🤣 Apparently admissions officers also have "absolute immunity" - who knew??
As always, Asha, thanks for keeping us up to date. Can't tell the trial cases without an explainer (to update a phrase!). A question maybe for office hours: Assuming. SCOTUS isn't crazy in taking presidential immunity case just to rule 9-0 against, might it be that they make a 'theory ruling', i.e., yes it is possible that a president is immune from prosecution for committing a crime while acting w/in his duly constituted role as president (Obama and executive authority to assassinate Americans deemed threats) while not making a specific ruling as to Constitutionality in this case? In essence, delay (Trump is happy) and punt back to Chutkan to rule on constitutionality of this act (further delay) which can then be appealed to Circuit and ultimately back to SCOTUS.
All I can say is I’m glad to see both of you and hear your real voices. And I, too, wanted to know about that last question. But choosing who to admit has to be incredibly challenging. Meanwhile, I’m getting super anxious about AI-generated content. Thanks for the update in this confusing time.
“ sometimes we don’t act rationally in matters of the heart…” Agree. The Hunter Biden saga, Ivanka & Jared and others are examples of acting within the law but violating public trust. We can quibble about intent and severity but the end result is a violation of public trust. “Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain” Do better.
Trump Dump. Conjures images of Diaper Don no one needs.