Oof. Man. You did a brilliant job personalizing this. Free Robert Tracinski indeed. And thank you again for having a steady enough pen to again summarize everything in an easy to digest manner. It's such a sewer, I appreciate your service.
Wow. Reading some of the comments from Trump supporters makes me despair about human intelligence. I'm perpetually amazed that people can't see the bigger picture. It's dispiriting; but it won't stop me.
I suppose Robert that in an amateurish way I am in the same boat as you are. I have published things criticizing Trump harshly and disagreeing with court’s decision not to invoke the 14th Amendment against him. So I guess I might have something to worry about if he won and did some of the things he has been ranting about. However, I am not going to be classifying anyone as an enemy based on this election. There are people I respect on both sides. Of the two people I care most about in the world, one is afraid of Harris and the left and planning to vote for Trump, and the other is afraid of Trump and planning to vote for Harris. Besides, there may be something to worry about along those lines from the other side with John Kerry seeming to want to repeal the First Amendment to squelch criticism of his notions on apocalyptic climate change and Hillary talking about criminal charges against people who say things she doesn’t like. It is not as though there were many good guys in this sad movie. I despise Trump and do not want to vote for him. But I won’t vote for Harris. I may just leave the top line blank.
There was a time that admired and respected you. When took over the Intellectual Activist I stayed with you for many years. When you started doing work for The Federalist, I took some pride in knowing that I had been reading your work for years and now you were working at one of my favorite websites. I am a Donald Trump supporter and it did not bother me that you were not because while I did not always agree with your criticism, I respected your position because it was well reasoned.
I was disappointed when Ben Domenech fired you because you were not on the Trump train. It bothered me because I had felt The Federalist was intellectually honest.
But then I discovered that went to work with The Bulwark. Talk about an intellectually dishonest website. They were nothing but a bunch of Orange Man Bad people.
Then I received your “Remember, Remember, this 5th of November”. Oh boy. I was going to write a rather long response mentioning all the crap that Democrats have done over the years with respect to denying the will of the voter. Then I pulled up the SCOTUS decision on the immunity case to read for myself the context of the section you quoted. To my amazement you quoted Justice Roberts’ summary of the charges in the Jack Smith indictment as if they were factual findings of the Court. You conveniently left out the first sentence of that second paragraph from the decision, “According to the indictment, Trump advanced his goal through five primary means.” That was odious on your part. By doing that you not only lied to your audience but you rendered everything after that meaningless. Furthermore, what you did was not only intellectually dishonest but you destroyed the trust your readers have that your opinions are soundly based on reality.
The actual Court finding is as follows:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 634 (Jackson, J., concurring). Our perspective must be more farsighted, for “[t]he peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969).
Our first President had such a perspective. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the Nation that “a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable.” 35 Writings of George Washington 226 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1940). A government “too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction,” he warned, could lead to the “frightful despotism” of “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Id., at 226–227. And the way to avoid that cycle, he explained, was to ensure that government powers remained “properly distributed and adjusted.” Id., at 226.
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In other words, those allegations from the indictment must now be judged by the lower court in accordance with this decision.
Is it not within the President’s official duties to ensure that the results of an election were in fact legitimate?
Is having an alternate slate of electors legal and within the powers of the President? (President Kennedy used an alternate slate of electors from Hawaii. (He also had is father ask Richard Daly to raise the dead to cast some votes for JFK.))
Furthermore, if you were a lawyer and misquoted the Supreme Court the way did in this Substack in official court filings you could find yourself on the wrong end of an ethics inquiry.
I am hugely disappointed that someone who was influenced by Ayn Rand would lower himself to such dishonesty. I will be unsubscribing from your Substack.
Dear Rob, we've been friendly acquaintances for a very long time. I find it distressing that my vote for someone is going to make you my enemy. I think that's a bridge too far, but if you truly believe that, I ask that you refund the rest of my subscription. Let me know if/when you decide differently, but for now that's where we are based on your position. Sadly, Nancy Laney
Given that I have been saying the same things about Trump since 2015, I don't see how anyone can possibly be surprised by my views.
Also, I notice that you provide nothing to answer the substance of this article. I quote Trump threatening to make criticism illegal and his supporters calling to cancel broadcast licenses. Doesn't this bother you?
Rob, I have always enjoyed your take on things. What I object to is calling anyone an "enemy" who doesn't come to the same conclusions based on the same facts. That level of anger bothers me greatly.
To answer your question directly, I believe both sides are threatening to infringe (or are currently infringing in the case of the current administration) on our freedom of speech. The collusion with Facebook et al about Covid being a case in point. (It's one thing when protestors shut down a speaker, it's another when federal agencies act the same.) Further, just because a candidate says they're going to do something when elected doesn't mean it will happen. Reagan promised prayer in schools.
So, I've answered your question and clarified my position on your "enemy" comment. Are you going to "enemy"/cancel me for my opinions or not?
To wit, I find it most distressing that you even think that your vote for someone is going to make you an enemy in your former acquaintance’s open mind. Donald J Trump is unfit to be an American President….DON’T YOU KNOW THAT. That is the theme of his penning this and his alluding too future letters. If he has already failed to do that, then do what Bill Buckley famously told a former dear reader. Free your mind from the Trump virus. PRAY TO END TRUMPISM in all its grotesque forms. God help U.S. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant, you asked for it. Ashli Babbitt still cannot be reached for comment
To wit, this should be your Preamble Robert, as I take liberties with your righteously vowing to NEVER FORGET (I admit it, I share some of Heat Misers juvenile, rash instincts)
Remember, REMEMBER, This January 6th, I mean November 5th
#REMEMBERASHLIBABBITT The young looney tune died for a BIG FING LIE uttered over and over and over again by a shameless, mendacious, narcissistic, megalomaniac sociopath, conman, FTX , I mean NFT huckster, anti-truth anti social crony capitalist pig, serial adulterer, reality T.V. porn star, G.O.P. Crasher, formerly the world’s biggest Twitter troll and America’s Now Biggest Sore Loser Donald J Trump. And that’s not all….gotta run on. Ashli Babbitt still cannot be reached for comment. Thanks for taking my rant An Atheist that still reads The Holy Bible. Peace through superior mental firepower
Rob. I share your concerns with a Trump presidency. However, I would like to know why you seem to put it beyond Democrats to apply similar tactics to Jan 6 should the election go against them. Why wouldn't Antifa, BLM, enviro-extremists, Oct 7 demonstrators and others take up violence to overturn the election encouraged by the progressive left establishment? Hopefully, you can address this in one of the upcoming installments.
The idea of a left-wing January 6 is speculative, but a right wing January 6 has already happened, so there's a big difference there. Also look at the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that were supposed to happen at the Democratic convention this year, that were supposed to be a replay of Chicago in 1968. Instead, they fizzled out. So like I said, you have a speculative threat versus a real threat.
And look, if we had both sides wanting to do this, we'd be cooked no matter what happens. But I don't think we're that far along toward authoritarianism.
Hear, Hear. Bravo. Your case is seemingly so obvious that it should't need to be stated, but, alas, it does. Thank you for going on the record, again and again. As you note, the risk in doing that is indeed personal.
I can agree with much of what you argue, even if it does not, to me, correspondingly and automatically make the case for that idiot Harris. However, Trump’s positions on Ukraine (I think he is wrong) and tariffs (disastrously wrong) do not support the case for unfitness for office. Those are policy differences only, not fitness disqualifiers. And they are policies on which honest and well-meaning people can disagree. You dilute your argument when you start rattling off a mere shopping list of points of disagreement.
Oof. Man. You did a brilliant job personalizing this. Free Robert Tracinski indeed. And thank you again for having a steady enough pen to again summarize everything in an easy to digest manner. It's such a sewer, I appreciate your service.
Well said. The facts are plain and voluminous with Trump. I welcome your cogent laying them out.
“It Can’t Happen Here.” No, sadly and dumbfoundingly, it is happening here.
Wow. Reading some of the comments from Trump supporters makes me despair about human intelligence. I'm perpetually amazed that people can't see the bigger picture. It's dispiriting; but it won't stop me.
I suppose Robert that in an amateurish way I am in the same boat as you are. I have published things criticizing Trump harshly and disagreeing with court’s decision not to invoke the 14th Amendment against him. So I guess I might have something to worry about if he won and did some of the things he has been ranting about. However, I am not going to be classifying anyone as an enemy based on this election. There are people I respect on both sides. Of the two people I care most about in the world, one is afraid of Harris and the left and planning to vote for Trump, and the other is afraid of Trump and planning to vote for Harris. Besides, there may be something to worry about along those lines from the other side with John Kerry seeming to want to repeal the First Amendment to squelch criticism of his notions on apocalyptic climate change and Hillary talking about criminal charges against people who say things she doesn’t like. It is not as though there were many good guys in this sad movie. I despise Trump and do not want to vote for him. But I won’t vote for Harris. I may just leave the top line blank.
Dear Robert Tracinski,
There was a time that admired and respected you. When took over the Intellectual Activist I stayed with you for many years. When you started doing work for The Federalist, I took some pride in knowing that I had been reading your work for years and now you were working at one of my favorite websites. I am a Donald Trump supporter and it did not bother me that you were not because while I did not always agree with your criticism, I respected your position because it was well reasoned.
I was disappointed when Ben Domenech fired you because you were not on the Trump train. It bothered me because I had felt The Federalist was intellectually honest.
But then I discovered that went to work with The Bulwark. Talk about an intellectually dishonest website. They were nothing but a bunch of Orange Man Bad people.
Then I received your “Remember, Remember, this 5th of November”. Oh boy. I was going to write a rather long response mentioning all the crap that Democrats have done over the years with respect to denying the will of the voter. Then I pulled up the SCOTUS decision on the immunity case to read for myself the context of the section you quoted. To my amazement you quoted Justice Roberts’ summary of the charges in the Jack Smith indictment as if they were factual findings of the Court. You conveniently left out the first sentence of that second paragraph from the decision, “According to the indictment, Trump advanced his goal through five primary means.” That was odious on your part. By doing that you not only lied to your audience but you rendered everything after that meaningless. Furthermore, what you did was not only intellectually dishonest but you destroyed the trust your readers have that your opinions are soundly based on reality.
The actual Court finding is as follows:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 634 (Jackson, J., concurring). Our perspective must be more farsighted, for “[t]he peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969).
Our first President had such a perspective. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the Nation that “a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable.” 35 Writings of George Washington 226 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1940). A government “too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction,” he warned, could lead to the “frightful despotism” of “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Id., at 226–227. And the way to avoid that cycle, he explained, was to ensure that government powers remained “properly distributed and adjusted.” Id., at 226.
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In other words, those allegations from the indictment must now be judged by the lower court in accordance with this decision.
Is it not within the President’s official duties to ensure that the results of an election were in fact legitimate?
Is having an alternate slate of electors legal and within the powers of the President? (President Kennedy used an alternate slate of electors from Hawaii. (He also had is father ask Richard Daly to raise the dead to cast some votes for JFK.))
Furthermore, if you were a lawyer and misquoted the Supreme Court the way did in this Substack in official court filings you could find yourself on the wrong end of an ethics inquiry.
I am hugely disappointed that someone who was influenced by Ayn Rand would lower himself to such dishonesty. I will be unsubscribing from your Substack.
David Chenkin
Dear Rob, we've been friendly acquaintances for a very long time. I find it distressing that my vote for someone is going to make you my enemy. I think that's a bridge too far, but if you truly believe that, I ask that you refund the rest of my subscription. Let me know if/when you decide differently, but for now that's where we are based on your position. Sadly, Nancy Laney
Given that I have been saying the same things about Trump since 2015, I don't see how anyone can possibly be surprised by my views.
Also, I notice that you provide nothing to answer the substance of this article. I quote Trump threatening to make criticism illegal and his supporters calling to cancel broadcast licenses. Doesn't this bother you?
Rob, I have always enjoyed your take on things. What I object to is calling anyone an "enemy" who doesn't come to the same conclusions based on the same facts. That level of anger bothers me greatly.
To answer your question directly, I believe both sides are threatening to infringe (or are currently infringing in the case of the current administration) on our freedom of speech. The collusion with Facebook et al about Covid being a case in point. (It's one thing when protestors shut down a speaker, it's another when federal agencies act the same.) Further, just because a candidate says they're going to do something when elected doesn't mean it will happen. Reagan promised prayer in schools.
So, I've answered your question and clarified my position on your "enemy" comment. Are you going to "enemy"/cancel me for my opinions or not?
Dear Nancy, CANCEL YOUR OWN DAMN SUBSCRIPTION!
To wit, I find it most distressing that you even think that your vote for someone is going to make you an enemy in your former acquaintance’s open mind. Donald J Trump is unfit to be an American President….DON’T YOU KNOW THAT. That is the theme of his penning this and his alluding too future letters. If he has already failed to do that, then do what Bill Buckley famously told a former dear reader. Free your mind from the Trump virus. PRAY TO END TRUMPISM in all its grotesque forms. God help U.S. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant, you asked for it. Ashli Babbitt still cannot be reached for comment
To wit, this should be your Preamble Robert, as I take liberties with your righteously vowing to NEVER FORGET (I admit it, I share some of Heat Misers juvenile, rash instincts)
Remember, REMEMBER, This January 6th, I mean November 5th
#REMEMBERASHLIBABBITT The young looney tune died for a BIG FING LIE uttered over and over and over again by a shameless, mendacious, narcissistic, megalomaniac sociopath, conman, FTX , I mean NFT huckster, anti-truth anti social crony capitalist pig, serial adulterer, reality T.V. porn star, G.O.P. Crasher, formerly the world’s biggest Twitter troll and America’s Now Biggest Sore Loser Donald J Trump. And that’s not all….gotta run on. Ashli Babbitt still cannot be reached for comment. Thanks for taking my rant An Atheist that still reads The Holy Bible. Peace through superior mental firepower
Rob. I share your concerns with a Trump presidency. However, I would like to know why you seem to put it beyond Democrats to apply similar tactics to Jan 6 should the election go against them. Why wouldn't Antifa, BLM, enviro-extremists, Oct 7 demonstrators and others take up violence to overturn the election encouraged by the progressive left establishment? Hopefully, you can address this in one of the upcoming installments.
The idea of a left-wing January 6 is speculative, but a right wing January 6 has already happened, so there's a big difference there. Also look at the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that were supposed to happen at the Democratic convention this year, that were supposed to be a replay of Chicago in 1968. Instead, they fizzled out. So like I said, you have a speculative threat versus a real threat.
And look, if we had both sides wanting to do this, we'd be cooked no matter what happens. But I don't think we're that far along toward authoritarianism.
Hear, Hear. Bravo. Your case is seemingly so obvious that it should't need to be stated, but, alas, it does. Thank you for going on the record, again and again. As you note, the risk in doing that is indeed personal.
I can agree with much of what you argue, even if it does not, to me, correspondingly and automatically make the case for that idiot Harris. However, Trump’s positions on Ukraine (I think he is wrong) and tariffs (disastrously wrong) do not support the case for unfitness for office. Those are policy differences only, not fitness disqualifiers. And they are policies on which honest and well-meaning people can disagree. You dilute your argument when you start rattling off a mere shopping list of points of disagreement.