Yesterday evening I was surprised, as I suspect many were, by a snap press conference conducted by President Biden in reaction to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s decision not to prosecute him for mishandling classified documents. Although it may have been intended as damage control on the FBI’s report’s remarks on the president’s comportment and, particularly, his memory, I am not sure he accomplished that objective. Indeed, he may have accomplished the opposite. Today I expect that the president’s surrogates will fan out to perform damage control on the damage control.

IMO the press conference was an error. What I believe should have happened is that the president should have made a brief statement praising the FBI for having arrived at the right conclusion (not prosecuting him), contrasting himself with Donald Trump, and that’s all. He should not have answered questions.

Here’s my question. Did the president help himself or hurt himself in the press conference?

The editors of the Washington Post laud the appeals court’s decision I posted on yesterday:

Donald Trump has no immunity from prosecution for trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s opinion on this question, handed down on Tuesday, is as firm and forceful as the former president’s claims are frivolous. That ought to be the end of the matter, and the Supreme Court now has a chance to say so.

A bipartisan panel took almost a month to produce this week’s decision. But, when the three judges finally produced their ruling, they did so per curiam — with a single voice. This choice, from two judges appointed by President Biden and another by George H.W. Bush, not only emphasizes the solidity of the legal reasoning; it also makes it unlikely Mr. Trump will persuade the full appeals court to hear the case, should his lawyers ask. His only remaining option is to apply to the Supreme Court by a Monday deadline the D.C. Circuit has imposed. The justices will then determine whether to take up his petition — and, in so doing, further delay Mr. Trump’s trial for his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, which U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan had scheduled to begin early next month in D.C. but postponed pending resolution of this issue.

They should say no, allowing the D.C. Circuit’s ruling to stand. The circuit judges have ably dismantled Mr. Trump’s arguments, which were unconvincing to begin with.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal concur:

In an unsigned opinion, the D.C. Circuit’s three-judge panel makes short work of bad immunity arguments, such as the claim that Mr. Trump can’t be criminally indicted because he was already impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. This isn’t double jeopardy. It’s legal sophistry.

but warn about possible run-on effects:

Yet the court also makes too-short work of better arguments. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court said the President has “absolute immunity” from civil liability for “official acts.” That case involved a federal worker who argued his layoff was political retaliation. “Because of the singular importance of the President’s duties,” the High Court said, “diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”

One question posed by Mr. Trump’s case is whether his actions in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, were within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties, as Fitzgerald put it. Mr. Trump betrayed Mike Pence on Jan. 6, but if a President asks a Vice President to perform a legislative maneuver in the Senate, that looks like official conduct. What about the other allegations in the indictment, though, such as that Mr. Trump and his aides convened “sham proceedings” to cast phony electoral votes?

The D.C. Circuit blows past the question, because it categorically refuses to extend the logic of Fitzgerald. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the panel says. The judges are justifiably outraged at Mr. Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election, which they call “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.”

of which the appeals court’s decision also took note but I think dismissed too quickly. There is good reason for their concern:

“This is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federally indicted,” the judges write, with confidence that may not age well. “The risk that former Presidents will be unduly harassed by meritless federal criminal prosecutions appears slight.”

Mr. Trump is all but promising that if he wins in November, he will ask his Justice Department to charge President Biden. “Joe would be ripe for Indictment,” he fumed last month. For what crime? Who knows, but the federal statute books are voluminous. The Supreme Court last year upheld a law that gives prison time to a person who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States.”

Unless the Supreme Court acts quickly to limit the appeals court’s decision I will not be surprised if Joe Biden faces thousands of criminal suits on leaving office. He’s not unique in that. All living former presidents would be at risk.

What strikes me as the most important story of the day is this decision by the DC district circuit court of appeals, reported by Andrew Goudsward at Reuters:

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – Donald Trump does not have immunity from charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election defeat, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday, bringing the former U.S. president a step closer to an unprecedented criminal trial.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted because the allegations relate to his official responsibilities as president.

“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the unanimous panel wrote.
The court concluded that any executive immunity that may have shielded Trump from criminal charges while he served as president “no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

The ruling, which Trump vowed to appeal, rebuffs his attempt to avoid a trial on charges that he undermined American democracy and the transfer of power, even as he consolidates his position as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

I honestly don’t know the law on this but I will admit to a healthy skepticism of Trump’s argument. Now it’s on to the Supreme Court? Will the SCOTUS hear the case and how quickly?

First and foremost I think we are too involved in the Middle East rather than not involved enough. The reasons that we have farflung outposts in Syria and Iraq like the one in which a drone killed three American soldiers are unclear to me. They seem far too risky. I honestly don’t understand how you can blame Israel for the Hamas attack that took place on 10/7 and not blame the U. S. for that drone attack but I’ve seen accounts that do just that.

That said and if you believe we should be responding to these militia attacks with military force I think that Frank Sobchak’s advice at the Modern War Institute at West Point is pretty good. He recommends

• targeting senior IRGC Quds Force leaders outside of Iran and linked to its violent proxies
• warning the Iranians and then sinking the Iranian spy ship off Yemen
• telling Iran that submarines and craft capable of laying mines will not be allowed to leave their bases until this crisis is over or they will be destroyed

If there is legitimate fear that Iran has nuclear breakout capability, I would have other recommendations.

This backgrounder at PBS Newshour summarizes the situation with respect to the U. S. offensive against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen as of yesterday:

The United States and Britain have struck Iran-backed armed groups in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, while Israel presses ahead with its offensive against Hamas in Gaza.

Here is what to know about what is happening in the region now, and why…

As of today via Sky News the militias are responding:

A drone attack apparently carried out by the Iran-backed Islamic Resistance group overnight has killed six Kurdish commandos from the Syrian Democratic Forces who were stationed at an American base in eastern Syria, the SDF has said.

The SDF is composed primarily of Kurdish, Arab, and Assyrian/Syriac members.

Fourteen people were injured.

“The number [of deaths] is likely to rise due to serious injuries,” the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The base, near al Omar oil field, was targeted with a drone, as part of the “Revenge for Gaza” campaign, it added.

Attacks against shipping in the Red Sea in the last three weeks are also greater than they were three weeks ago.

I continue to wonder what the objectives of our military responses are. If they are to deter attacks by these militias, clearly they are not effective yet. Do we have reason to believe that more U. S. attacks will be more effective? I have no idea.

Jack has now been a part of our pack for about a year and a half. He’s obviously still a juvenile but is maturing.

It may have escaped your attention but last week the Chicago City Council passed a resolution that had national if not international importance. At ABC 7 Chicago Jessica D’Onofrio, Craig Wall and Eric Horng report:

CHICAGO (WLS) — A large crowd gathered in Daley Plaza after the Chicago City Council passed a controversial resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza on Wednesday.

Some also marched in the streets.

The council meeting became tense at times, with people in the audience shouting out and some being escorted from council chambers.

The council vote became dramatic, with Mayor Brandon Johnson casting the tie-breaking vote. Resolutions are typically passed quickly and without controversy, but the council spent months on this topic.

Alderwoman Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, who spearheaded the cease-fire resolution, hugged a colleague and wiped away a tear after the final vote.

“I mean, I am very overwhelmed emotionally. I’m very grateful for all the colleagues that supported the resolution,” she said.

It ended months of debate over the war in Gaza that caused great division in the city council.

That was on full display as the council debated the non-binding resolution for the third time. The only Jewish alderperson made a passionate plea against it.

“How do you support a revolution that allows a terrorist regime to stay in power, so that it can continue to attack the world’s only Jewish state?” said 50th Ward Alderwoman Debra Silverstein.

Mayor Brandon Johnson cleared the chambers and recessed for an hour after repeated disruptions by pro-Palestinian supporters in the gallery. When debate resumed, it was civil, but urgent.

Chicago is the largest city whose city council has called for a ceasefire in Gaza. If the ceasefire they’re calling for actually took place it would not mean an end to violence. It would mean that all of the violence would be perpetrated by Hamas and members of other radical Islamist groups.

Why do I say it has everything? My first reaction was that the resolution was an indication of the loss of influence of Jewish voters in Chicago’s politics. Can you imagine IDF civilian truck repairman Rahm Emanuel casting the deciding vote in support of this resolution? Me, neither.

I don’t think that issues like this are the concerns of city governments at all.

Also, keep in mind that calling for a ceasefire without calling for Hamas to surrender and disarm itself is materially genocidal. So, we have a city council taking a materially pro-genocide position.

Note, too, that the debate was disrupted by pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Why was that not insurrection?

The Trib’s editorial calls the resolution “hateful”.

The vote was largely along racial/ethnic lines.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal John H. Cochrane explains why, despite his what might generously be referred to as his flaws, many Americans continue to support Donald Trump:

Democrats and traditional Republicans are flummoxed. How are 4 in 10 of our fellow citizens ready to vote for Donald Trump? Democrats deplore Trump supporters as racists who must be saved from their ignorance. Traditional Republicans dream that some policy plan or another attack on Mr. Trump’s character might sway his voters.

We ought to listen instead. What motivates Trump supporters? Simple: They want their country back.

They might have lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. What was the sacrifice for? In the botched peace and withdrawal, they concluded that the foreign-policy elite don’t know what they’re doing. They are hesitant about Ukraine, Iran and Taiwan because the same crew is in charge. They’ll back an America that fights to win, but they don’t want their sons and daughters to die for America only to lose slowly.

In the 2007-08 financial crisis, they lost a house, a job or a business. They learned that the people in charge of the financial system don’t know what they’re doing. ObamaCare sent them a health-insurance card that doesn’t work well when they get sick. They wonder: Do any of the policy wonks who promote this stuff actually use it themselves? They looked at Hillary Clinton and saw her insincerity, her nonprofit collecting millions, the way she said Trump supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.” They gambled on Mr. Trump.

Then the establishment blew up. They saw the Federal Bureau of Investigation harass Mr. Trump’s appointees, much of official Washington fashion itself “the resistance,” the Russia-collusion hoax, years of pointless investigations.

In 2020 Covid hit. Trump supporters initially went along, trusting institutions. But the pandemic soon exposed the politicized incompetence of the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the scientific establishment. Lockdowns destroyed lives. Officials made up rules and ramped up censorship. Inquiries about whether the virus came from a lab leak, or anything negative about masks or vaccines, became “misinformation” subject to censorship. Trump supporters saw media, tech companies and national-security bigwigs suppress the news of the Hunter Biden laptop just in time for the election.

When schools went remote, parents found out what was actually going on inside the classrooms. Teachers were coaching students to hate themselves, their country and their religious traditions and sexualizing young children. The FBI treated angry parents as domestic terrorists. After Oct. 7, Trump supporters learned that universities are incompetent and politicized and disdain people like them. They saw that once-trusted mainstream-media outlets had become political advocates long ago.

Voters see the chaos of a dysfunctional immigration system spill into their neighborhoods. They see crime overwhelming and shutting down cities where officials refuse to enforce laws. They see the homeless invading public spaces.

They aren’t proud of Mr. Trump’s actions after the 2020 election. But 91 felony counts, some brought by prosecutors who campaigned on a promise to get Mr. Trump, and most unrelated to the election? Bonnie and Clyde didn’t have this much legal trouble! And now disqualifying Mr. Trump from the ballot? “Destroy democracy to save democracy” is no longer a joke. The existence of the deep state seems to be confirmed with every outrage.

Why I continue to oppose Trump and will not vote for him is explained by a passage from the New Testament, Matthew 7:18:

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I do not believe that Mr. Trump is a good man. Furthermore he does not have the personal skills or understanding of the law and the federal government to accomplish even what his supporters reasonably want. I don’t believe that any good can come from a second Trump term.

Although he doesn’t say it outright James Joyner’s recent post strongly suggests, through his reference to an episode of The West Wing, that he finds the U. S. response to continuing attacks by what are blithely referred to as “militant groups” in the Middle East inadequate. He sounds more fatigued than anything else.

My own reaction is that I’m skeptical that it’s a just use of military force. For such to be just it must:

• Have a just objective
• Use just means
• Have a just authority

Retaliation against those who killed American soldiers in Jordan last week would be just but retaliation against people who had nothing to do with those deaths would not. The large number of targets strongly suggests it is not a just retaliation. The means are just enough.

But President Biden did not seek Congressional approval which he would need to have done to have a just authority for his actions. Consequently, I’m skeptical the actions are just and echo James’s conclusion:

So the tiresome game of tit for tat continues.