Connect with us

How To Get Away With Murder: On Shonda Rhimes and ABC’s Scandal

Published

on

Essayist Max S. Gordon Takes Another Deep Look Inside ABC’s ‘Scandal’

“These movies are designed not to trouble, but to reassure; they do not reflect reality, they merely rearrange its elements into something we can bear.  They also weaken our ability to deal with the world as it is, ourselves as we are.”

-James Baldwin, Mass Culture and the Creative Artist: Some Personal Notes

 

“She wakes up early every morning, just to do her hair now. 

 Because she cares y’all.  

 Her layout wouldn’t be right without her make-up.  She’s never out of make-up. 

 She’s just like you and me, but she’s homeless.  She’s homeless. 

 As she stands there singing for money.” 

                                                 -Crystal Waters, Gypsy Woman (She’s Homeless)

 

 (This essay includes spoilers for the television show ‘Scandal,’ and descriptions of graphic violence.)

 

On a recent episode of ABC’s evening television show Scandal, a semi-regular character, ex-chief-of-staff Elizabeth North, played with a chic, slightly ribald gusto by Portia De Rossi, is murdered by having her brains beaten out. (We know this because the camera pulls back and reveals her beaten-out brains.) 

This occurs after an episode in which a guest character, an assassin named Meg, is tortured for information concerning another character’s whereabouts. Meg lies on the floor naked, surrounded by blood, a drill, and other bits of torture paraphernalia, wrapped in plastic with a piece of duct tape across her mouth. The image recalls the 2004 images of torture from Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq war. Quinn, one of Olivia Pope Associates and Meg’s torturer, tells her: “Everyone talks eventually. You’re going to talk. I just haven’t hit the right nerve.”  Meg’s leg is punctured, a “Nightmare on Elm Street” rake is run down the side of her face, and one of her fingers is cut off with a pair of weed-cutters and lifted for her to see (“Was it this finger that pulled the trigger when you shot my friend?”). She responds, still sassy: “No wonder Huck loved me instead of you”, and spits in her interrogator’s face. 

Quinn, in a moment of jealousy and pique, slices Meg’s throat and kills her. When she returns to the office, Olivia, DC ‘fixer’ and the star of the show, reacts not in horror at Meg’s murder, but with annoyance. “Did it feel good?” she asks. “Hope so. Because (now) we have no leads.” Quinn walks away sulking, embarrassed by her lack of control. But true to Scandal’s narrative style, any remorse she feels evaporates with the next plot development. 

In an earlier episode of this season entitled “Extinction”, Rowan Pope, Olivia’s father, is extorted by a high-powered agency which threatens to kill the love of his life, a black paleontologist named Sandra, if he doesn’t follow their orders. As Sandra stands by awaiting her fate, Rowan turns around, pulls out a gun, and, after a monologue about how he isn’t going to “pick their cotton and shine their shoes”, blows Sandra away himself. (Killing a black woman liberates him.) Rowan has informed us earlier of his credo on relationships: “Anyone you love, anyone who’s close to you, is a weakness”. With Sandra’s corpse in the background, Rowan tells the evil agency duo, “I have no weaknesses. No one owns me.” One of the agency thugs, Marjorie, appears slightly impressed: “I gotta give it to you. I did not see that one coming.”  

Neither did I, but I should have. In 2014 I wrote a piece entitled, “Modern Day Jezebels: Why I Am No Longer Watching ABC’s Scandal and why the Lena Dunham Episode was Fucked Up.” In that episode, “It’s Good To Be Kink”, Lena Dunham, playing a EPA chemist/writer named Kinky Sue, is shopping a roman-à-clef on Washington’s most powerful men. Near the conclusion of the episode, Quinn and Huck arrive at Sue’s apartment as she is being held at knifepoint. They rescue her, Quinn calms her hysteria, and for reasons too contrived and convoluted to bother going into here, Huck cuts Sue’s throat, fearing the day when she might still talk. 

With Sue’s death, Scandal prided itself on another “shocking moment”. I, however, vowed at the time that that was my last episode.  I guess this makes me a hypocrite and a liar, because I started watching again soon after “to see what happened next.” Continuing to watch a TV series you hate can be a bit like compulsively masturbating: you don’t necessarily want to do it, but you’re at home, it’s there, and after a while it’s become a habit.  

The excuse I gave myself is that I had to see how the Dunham/Kinky Sue plot was resolved, and if there was any grief over her death.  There was none.  In fact, the opposite: after discussing how sexually free Sue was (but still a whore), Pope associate and press secretary Abby Whelan and her boyfriend Leo decide to get their “Last-Tango-in-Paris” on, and run to the kitchen to get some butter – a recipe from Sue’s tell-all sex book. Olivia brings home what may be her first a one-night stand.  On the soundtrack, we hear Aretha Franklin’s “Dr. Feelgood (Love Is A Serious Business)”.

So I guess Scandal won: I kept watching, which is what ratings are all about.  And I can’t blame anyone but myself for the “hangover” I had this week after watching Lizzy North’s murder and the latest torture scenes; the same crummy feeling of despair that I had back in 2015.  The feeling I’m trying to describe is what you experience, if you have any conscience at all, when you’ve stumbled online across pornography that is particularly degrading and violent.  I avoid violent porn on principle – hooray for me – but I have watched some domination and submission videos in past.  Internet porn covers a vast, rangy terrain, and every now and then a pop-up site or an anonymous video is posted where someone goes too far, where you suspect the person you are watching may be in actual pain.  Depending how far one is willing to descend into the shadows of that nefarious tunnel, I suspect we are all aware that there are images and videos to be found online that cross lines of morality and legality, depending on where one chooses to draw the line.  

after_1.jpgWith Scandal, it is the show’s creator Shonda Rhimes’ and the writers’ “triumph” that they have taken the “vibe” or lurid thrill of hardcore pornography, and its dissociative quality, and turned it into compulsively watchable mainstream TV.  And it’s not the violence that distinguishes Scandal; there are plenty of shows with murder and mayhem. It’s the way in which murder and ruthlessness are treated like fashion accessories, or part of some “bad-ass” finishing school.  Torturing people makes you “fierce.”  Quinn, for example, a somewhat hapless loser in the early seasons of the show, finds her purpose when she tortures – she has a talent for it.  Her initiation into torture comes from her colleague Huck. Believing at one point that Quinn may be a traitor, Huck tortures Quinn, licking her face (torture turns Huck on) and pulling out one of her teeth with a pair of pliers. Quinn, a character once despised by many Scandal fans, becomes sexier and more confident after this plot development. She also begins a sexual relationship with Huck.  When they are getting it on, she only once refers to the pain from her missing tooth. (Huck had planned to take out all her teeth –  “it’s very effective, the pain of having your teeth ripped from your gums, one by one” – but he was interrupted by a phone call.) 

After watching six seasons of Scandal, I can say with confidence there is barely a single character on the show who has not committed murder.  And not murder as self-defense, but as a career move.  Olivia Pope beats a man in a wheelchair to death because he calls her some bad names, and Fitzgerald Grant, the President of the United States, murders a Supreme Court justice on life-support to keep her from telling a secret.  The character Jake Ballard kills Cyrus Bean’s lover James at point-blank range, Sally Langston kills her homosexual husband Daniel, and on and on.  I am at a lost to describe one relationship on the show which is not fueled by pathology.  In one of the last episodes of this season, Olivia fights to save her father from prison, which is surprising, given the number of times she has asked other characters to kill him for her, and the time when she pulled a gun on him herself.  Olivia Pope’s mother, whom we haven’t seen in a while, escapes from prison by chewing her own flesh. 

To read these plots points here, one might imagine a show that, if presented in an over-the-top, Grand Guignol style, might be so ridiculous it would fall into the genre of horror/comedy – everybody killing everybody.  But Scandal has very little humor.  It takes itself and its lead character very seriously; and, finally, its brutality and gore, and the sour feeling you are left with, make it almost impossible to laugh at.  Olivia Pope, with her puritanical, patrician aura, is presented to us as heroic, a role model, a “bad bitch”.  Shonda never misses an opportunity to remind us that Olivia wears the “white hat” and that her team of associates are “gladiators”.  At home we intuitively know we are watching a successful black woman dissociated from her emotional life as the result of trauma. The show, however, tells us that her coldness in all her relationships is due to her “determination”, “fearlessness”,  and “power”.

it.jpgIt is also exasperating that Scandal never comes clean about the fact that Olivia Pope is a black woman working for Republicans.  Or what the show calls Republicans: Mellie Grant gives a speech on abortion and reproductive rights that would make any radical feminist proud; the Grant White House supports chief-of-staff Cyrus Bean’s gay marriage (to a man he originally hired as a male prostitute).  Never does Olivia Pope watch President Grant cut funding for Head Start, or school lunch programs, or argue against affirmative action. And because Olivia has no black sisters, brothers, cousins, aunts, uncles, or grandparents – she is her own black satellite floating alone in the D.C. stratosphere – we never get a speech in which she has to grapple with what a real Republican adminstration does to the black population.  The show destroys whatever political credibility it might have by only briefly addressing this, but the bottom line is that if Mellie and Fitz behaved as “real” Republicans, if we actually considered that Olivia used her power to disenfranchise black voters, and what that meant historically, we’d consider Olivia a degraded sell-out.  Scandal recently ran an episode called “The Decision” on what might have happened if Olivia Pope hadn’t agreed to use voter fraud to get President Grant elected.  What was most fascinating was that, within Scandal’s universe, if you don’t chose ruthlessness and murder,  you end up with the alternative -  working a low-paying job with “fucked-up” (natural) hair. 

Rhimes takes this shit cake of political denial, and lavishly frosts it with the soul music of black artists from the Sixties and Seventies with a special emphasis on the music of Nina Simone and Stevie Wonder. I have written about it before, but never has it been as pronounced as of late, and I believe it deserves to be commented on again.  I find it particularly curious that Rhimes won’t go near obnoxious Eighties Steve Wonder (“Part Time Lover”, “I Just Called To Say I Love You”, “Don’t Drive Drunk”), but insists on taking music from Stevie’s most inspired, beautiful periods, when his writing was at its most profound.  No one feels anything for anyone on Scandal, so Rhimes plays Simone and Wonder to close the emotional gaps.  The main reason I have to stop watching Scandal is this: as someone who grew up during the years when Stevie Wonder was creating that music, I am beginning to associate songs like “Don’t You Worry ‘Bout A Thing” not with family reunions, black children dancing for grown-ups at parties, and childhood sunshine, but with Olivia Pope’s dysfunction relationship with her father, and with torture. I am being a little facetious when I say I don’t know if Stevie has seen the show,  but someone from Stevie’s camp, and from Nina’s, has given their approval for these songs to be used.  Whoever the culprits are, it’s a defilement and desecration of black art.  Torture if you want to, but find artists who share your sadistic message: please leave Nina and Stevie alone.  As usual, the best of black culture is treated like something in the free bin at a yard sale; handled, rummaged through, and discarded.  The justification, as always, is simple: we all know that permission to use music in television and movies is expensive.  Somebody, somewhere is getting paid. 

Stevie sings, “Isn’t She Lovely?” and you’re thinking, No, she’s not.  She might have been in the first couple of seasons, but now Olivia Pope’s a mess: she’s a victim, she’s a murderer, she’s out of her ever-loving black mind. (At one point, Scandal has Olivia kidnapped and put on the international auction block like a slave, sold to the highest bidder.) During the period of music Rhimes has chosen, Stevie sings songs like “Big Brother”, “Higher Ground”, “You Haven’t Done Nothin’ ”, “Living For The City”; poetry, compassion, and politics with a lyricism and courage which the show can’t even begin to approach. And it’s not only the violence and politics on Scandal that are funky: the show has now introduced an FBI director, a black woman named Angela, whom Fitz is sleeping with – his black female “side-piece” until Liv returns to him, or perhaps to humiliate her.  We’ll never know, because Liv seems numb to everything and everyone around her.  There is no love or chemistry in this new relationship. Fitz looks as if he is sleeping with the White House tour-guide.  We never get a scene in which Olivia cusses him out for replacing her with another black girlfriend, and the Scandal writers clearly don’t care what this “jungle feverish” choice of Fitz’s does to our already tenuous rapport with him.  It’s just another Scandal plot-point, to make us drop everything and run to Twitter to congratulate the show again for “shocking” us.   

what.jpgI asked a friend: if Scandal were put in a time-capsule for the year 3000, what would it tell anyone of the truth about black lives, or for that matter, white lives?  Which begs the question: what is the responsibility of the black artist?  Do Shonda Rhimes and Ryan Murphy, co-creator of American Horror Story – and I include him in this this conversation as a gay man -  have any responsibility other than simply to entertain, to make money for themselves?  If you don’t think they do, then you may find this essay intolerable.  Nina Simone told us in the Sixties that “an artist’s duty is to reflect the times.” That doesn’t mean that every black story has to be 12 Years A Slave, mind you. But as black artists and gay artists so rarely have the power of a Shonda Rhimes or a Ryan Murphy, one could argue that they have a responsibility in their mainstream shows to deal with at least some of what it means to be oppressed in this country.  (At the same time, one suspects that if they did tell the truth, they wouldn’t have shows in the mainstream.)  Perhaps they have no responsibility at all, but if they aren’t going to tell the truth, do they have to make things worse by promulgating the lie?

So we get from Murphy an extended scene on American Horror Story: Hotel in which a gay man – a narcissistic, entitled sissy and heroin addict – is brutally raped by a man wearing a metal dildo in the shape of a “twist” drill while another character says, “The more you scream, the more he likes it” and stares (this was when I stopped watching), and we get explicit torture from a black creator, Rhimes, who is herself the descendant of tortured slaves. I will continue to regret, and will forever be able to unsee, Kathy Bates, an actress I have greatly admired, playing real-life slaveholder Delphine LaLaurie graphically torturing an older black man on American Horror Story: Coven.  (I could have used for that series at least some of the empathy which Murphy has brought to this year’s Feud.)  It is almost as if artists from oppressed groups are saying to themselves: “You think you know how to torture?  We’ll show you how to torture!”  It was the argument used to justify the misogyny in some of Madonna’s work in the Eighties: if someone was going to exploit women, at least this time it was a woman and not a man making money from it – even when she harmed herself, when the stunt and media hype around the book Sex, for example, overwhelmed the reception of the great music on Erotica. 

Perhaps the violence on Scandal wouldn’t matter – “that’s entertainment”, as they say -  if it weren’t for the fact that Steve Stephens the “Facebook Killer” recently live-streamed his murder of an innocent man before his own suicide. The video was passed around on the internet, with fascination and horror, until finally his family members begged the public to appreciate that the victim was not just an image on a screen, but their father, their grandfather, Robert Godwin, Sr.  Weeks before this incident, there was a report about a 15-year-old girl gang-raped in a basement in Chicago, her violation also live-streamed on Facebook.  News sources reported that not one of the 40 people who watched the stream bothered to interrupt their viewing pleasure to call the police.    

Some people get really pissed off when you challenge successful black artists, especially when they are making serious money.  Rhimes, like Pope, is seen as a hero, credited with “saving a network”, and has even published an inspirational book.  And if that is the bottom line, as it so often is in this country, then I imagine that within that paradigm she deserves to be congratulated. But the fact is, given the images in which Scandal traffics, it isn’t that hard to keep people watching.  We are a society addicted to titillation, and we constantly need more aggressive and cruel forms of violence to get off.  If it is just a matter of getting people to watch, we all know that a group of children may stand around while one child tortures an animal, we know the thrill that used to come from the school playground when someone shouted “Fight!”.  Cars slows down past a traffic fatality, not out of pity, but morbid curiosity.  And morbidity is part of what this show is selling.  Adults may be able to navigate these choppy emotional waters: pre-teens and children, who, I can assure you, are watching, may find themselves bewildered by the cruelty, confused by the lack of grief or even of acknowledgement of the loss of human life.   Their “hangovers” after watching the show will last longer and the damage will be more severe.  The evidence of their cynicism and psychopathology will be found in the next school, mall, or church shooting.  We’ll ask ourselves with horror, didn’t they feel anything for the people they killed? The answer is they probably felt about the same thing that Quinn felt for Meg when she tortured her to death, or that Huck felt for Sue when he cut her throat.  

we.jpgI feel powerless over the appeal of Scandal.  And while I believe in the power of criticism, I know that what I’ve written here probably won’t make a damn bit of difference to Rhimes, ABC’s revenue, or the fans who extol the show’s virtues on social media.  I’ve been a fan myself. But I would like to offer this writing for the media course which will one day evaluate Scandal as a social phenonmenon, to discuss what Americans were watching in 2017; and to acknowledge that we have a man currently in the White House (a Scandal and American Horror Story of an entirely different kind) who claimed on the campaign trail that he supports torture, even the forms we had decided were inhuman and violated international law.  And I’m frightened, because when torture is depicted regularly on “prime time” television, in American homes and on ABC’s website with such banality, we may say to ourselves, “Well, she just got her finger cut off and she’s still talking back.  So President Trump wants more torture to protect us -  how bad can it really be? I watch Scandal.” While I wasn’t entirely convinced at first, Hulu’s recently released The Handmaid’s Tale has a scene of interrogation and violence in its third episode so horrifying it snapped me awake emotionally to what is at stake for me as a gay man in our society if I don’t resist; what is happening to queer people right now in many parts of the world.  It also helped me to appreciate what is truly missing from Scandal – a honest relationship to pain.

The female body, and specifically the transgender female body, is in serious peril in our culture.  After Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, Nate Parker and Casey Affleck, we still can’t seem to have an honest conversation about male sexual violence and assault in this country (although the firing of Bill O’Reilly may be a wonderful place to start).  Scandal prides itself on its black female lead and black female creator – unprecedented in the industry.  And yet, while men are killed on Scandal from time to time, it seems that women are disproportionately murdered,  and, in increasingly gruesome ways, for our viewing entertainment – dismembered. Nothing new about that.  On Scandal people walk down hallways in amazing outfits with expensive handbags, shouting monologues at each other, backstabbing each other.  I suppose you could say to the show’s credit that the women are as ruthless, sometimes even more so, than the men, the gay people are assholes just like the straight people.  Equal opportunity sadism.  It may seem fabulous, and the scenes go by at a rush, hardly giving us time to reflect; but what we are really watching in our culture at this time is the erosion of compassion, at a time when we need it most.  The evidence, if you look for it, is only a news headline away: an Asian man, bloody and screaming, is forcibly removed from an oversold flight, a Sikh man is shot in Seattle and told to go back to his own country, two inmates are put to death in the first double execution in Arkansas in seventeen years. 

If I were to meet Scandal’s creator, I think I would like to tell her this: in 2017, despite having had a Black incumbent in the White House, and the perceived black respectability that comes from the successes of a Tyler Perry or a Shonda Rhimes, the majority of black people are still, in one way or another, catching hell in America.  Anything that coarsens our society’s ability to feel, means a potentially greater attack on the “other” – black, gay, transgender, female.  And the society which can torture without remorse or hesitation, which grooves on it, is on its way to fascism. This means that the police officer who pulls your daughter over for speeding may not see her as a human being but as a piece of black “tail”, the agent who interrogates your son may be less interested in justice and more invigorated by his ability to terrify.  He may not make any particular connection to these feelings based on the entertainment he’s viewed, and perhaps there aren’t any.  But for the “audience” that watched the teenager raped in that Chicago basement, on some level it was just another episode of the ongoing reality series called our lives.  There were watchers, but no witnesses.  In Scandal, the relationship between popular entertainment, sadistic voyeurism, and torture porn is fully realized, complete. Because when we watch the scenes of torture on Scandal, we’re not on Meg’s side, we’re on Quinn’s. 

I opened this piece with Crystal Waters’ “Gypsy Woman: She’s Homeless” to show how economical it can be to tell the truth about black life, and to devastate.  There is more truth about black experience in America in the opening lines of that song than I’ve found in the entire six years of Scandal combined.  Telling the truth isn’t as hard as we think, and sometimes you can even make money from it. 

We are out here continuing to have to defend our humanity from people who make decisions daily about whether we will live or die.  And while it is arguable that the mainstream culture will never “see” us, or reflect the real truth about our black lives, we need our black artists to throws us life-preservers, Ms. Rhimes, not anchors. 

 

Other essays by Max S. Gordon on NCRM:
“Bill Cosby, Himself: Fame, Narcissism and Sexual Violence”
“Faggot As Footnote: on James Baldwin, I Am Not Your Negro, Can I Get A Witness, and Moonlight”

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Image by TED Conference via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

on

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

on

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

on

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.