| | | | Jumbo Trump indictment commentary value pack | | | (Ann Telnaes/The Washington Post) | | You have probably seen by now Thursday's ground-shaking legal news: Actress Gwyneth Paltrow was found not at fault in a 2016 collision with another skier. We have a very funny cartoon on the subject. Also, apparently, Donald Trump was indicted by New York prosecutors, almost certainly for falsification of business records related to hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, making Trump the first former president to face criminal charges. If you can believe, we have some commentary on that, too. Columnist Jennifer Rubin, who has followed the case since its inception, says the indictment is a triumph for justice. More indictments, and on more serious issues, are probably coming, but that doesn't make this one any less consequential. It is a watershed, she writes: "Trump is being prosecuted not because he is a former president but because his status as a former president does not shield him from the law." Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut agrees in an op-ed, calling the charge a "long-overdue reinforcement of a foundational principle of our republic: No one, however powerful, is above the law." It's a principle we came close to losing, too, in the wake of Watergate and the eventual pardon of Richard M. Nixon. Aftergut is pleased to see things unfolding differently this time; the way to rid ourselves of a "long national nightmare" is not to wake and pretend it never happened. Aftergut also cheers the ability of New York state to take on the task of setting such a precedent, rather than the charge proceeding at the federal level. He cites Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis's famous quote that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory." That's one of the beauties of federalism. Columnist Henry Olsen isn't so sure. He thinks a state prosecution — "in one of the country's most liberal jurisdictions," no less — is cause for queasiness. Given that this situation is so precedent-setting, it's important to get it exactly right; that's hard to do when the whole judicial process undertaking it is controlled by Democrats eager to boost their bona fides, Henry writes. | | Meanwhile, he argues, a case in federal court would be a much better fit. Those judges are appointed for life by a mix of both parties, insulating them much more from political pressure. That, Henry writes, "would mean the law, not partisan passions, would decide" Trump's fate. Indeed, the Editorial Board also thinks this is a pretty bad test case for indicting a former president. It relies on a novel legal strategy of which courts might be skeptical, and the underlying campaign-finance charge is shaky to boot. Other investigations still unfolding — including some, yes, at the federal level — are a stronger bet. Of course, "public perception and political strategy shouldn't dissuade a district attorney from bringing a solid case," the Board writes, but if this one isn't airtight, it will add a great deal of ammo to Republicans' "witch hunt" accusations. Not that they need any more! As columnist Dana Milbank chronicles, Team MAGA's denunciations of the indictment are already flying fast and loose. They also sound exactly (and hilariously) like Trump, as though he were yelling into a giant empty room and carbon-copy reverberations of his utterances were bouncing back at him — weaponizing … eaponizing … eaponizing … eaponizing …. If only there were a term for this! It's all just more evidence that Trump "still dominates the GOP," Dana writes, and that any "would-be Republican standard-bearer," Trump or not, will at least be Trumpian. But why shouldn't it still be Trump, journalist and author Jeff Greenfield asks? Plenty of politicians entangled in the criminal justice system have nevertheless gone on to great success over the years! Greenfield's op-ed is a very fun perp walk through this scandalous history. "You might think," he writes, "that 'they couldn't make the charge stick' is a less-than optimal campaign theme," but in a country where pretty much everyone believes politicians are corrupt either this way or that, you'd be surprised. | |  | | From Catherine Rampell's column decrying this mass disenrollment as a scandalous failure of government, given that nearly half those Medicaid recipients will still be eligible. An even higher proportion of kids still qualifies. Sadly, Catherine writes, they'll be kicked off the rolls for awful, bureaucratic reasons — say, "a letter got sent to the wrong address," or a recipient tried to use a government website when it was down. States need to start treating this red tape like the pandemic it is. Chaser: Columnist Henry Olsen says the GOP is playing catch-up on health care. It needs some fresh ideas. | | | (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post) | | Is anyone opposed to a second dose of hope this week? In case you missed it, contributing columnist Amanda Ripley on Thursday provided a personal training session on how to exercise the muscle of hope. Nown columnist David Von Drehle has a meditation on it, too, through the lens of the cardinal living outside his kitchen window. Birds are in crisis — with more than half of North American species in decline — because everything is in crisis. So is David "wrong to delight in this bird when so much woe stalks birds in general?" (The question is not just about birds.) Despair in the big things only begets more despair in the big things, David writes. Delight, joy, hope in the small stuff is where we find the resolve to fix the otherwise overwhelming crises that threaten them. Chaser: Read bird conservationist Michael Parr's 2019 op-ed on our declining bird population. It's alarming, but it, too, is ultimately hopeful. | | It's a goodbye. It's a haiku. It's … The Bye-Ku. 'Vote for this inmate' Is a pretty harsh sentence Plus, Debs did it first Plus! A Friday bye-ku (Fri-ku!) from reader Deborah D.: Trump is indicted Should I breathe more easily? No, I don't think so | | *** Have your own newsy haiku? Email it to me, along with any questions/comments/ambiguities. Have a great weekend! | | | | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment