Donald Trump Says He Can Only Work Over Christmas If He’s Planning a Coup
There’s a passage of Trump’s opposition to fast-tracking the DC Circuit review of Judge Tanya Chutkan’s opinion holding he is not immune from criminal prosecution that has gotten a lot of attention: Where he accuses Jack Smith of being a mean old Grinch.
Even if the Court grants expedited consideration—which it should not do—it should not adopt the prosecution’s proposed schedule, which is facially unreasonable. The prosecution “requests that the Court require the defendant’s opening brief be due no later than ten days from the entry of a briefing order,” Mot. 5-6—which, assuming the Court rules promptly on the motion to expedite after the close of briefing, would make President Trump’s opening brief due the day after Christmas. This proposed schedule would require attorneys and support staff to work round-the-clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans. It is as if the Special Counsel “growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’” DR. SEUSS, HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS (Random House 1957).
Trump shouldn’t have to reschedule his holidays to make his argument that he is above the law, he says.
The argument is obnoxious on its face. All the more so because Trump has been known to work over Christmas.
Indeed, Donald Trump worked his ass off — as did many of his closest aides and his lawyers — over Christmas 2020.
On December 18, Trump had the famous meeting to discuss seizing the voting machines. On December 19, he tweeted out the “Will be wild” announcement, kicking off efforts around the country to travel to DC for the rally. On December 21, he had a planning call with members of the Freedom Caucus. On December 22, Trump approved an ad buy to pressure governors. On December 22, Trump met with Scott Perry and Jeffrey Clark. On December 22, Mark Meadows attempted to enter the counting area in Cobb County, GA. On December 22, Trump gave a speech in which he defamed Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. On December 23, Trump called Georgia investigator Frances Watson and suggested that he she showed him winning by hundreds of thousands, “you’ll be praised.” On December 23, Trump accused Georgian election officials of being “Terrible people.” On December 23, Trump had an Oval Office meeting with Doug Mastriano and other Pennsylvania State Senators. On December 23, John Eastman fine-tuned his scheme to have Vice President Pence pick and choose which votes to count. On December 23, Trump tweeted out about Operation PENCE Card. On Christmas Day, Trump called Rusty Bowers and asked him to support the fake elector scheme. Also on Christmas, Trump tried to persuade Pence to reject Biden votes. On December 26 and 27, Scott Perry developed his plan to have Jeffrey Clark intefere at DOJ. On December 27, Trump harangued Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue for two hours in an attempt to get them to support his false claims of fraud, before he suggested he might install Clark. On December 27, he spoke with Roger Stone about plans for January 6, including his own plan to speak. On December 27, Trump started getting more involved in planning the event, beginning to discuss a march to the Capitol. On December 27, Trump boosted January 6 again. On December 28, Rudy’s team finalized their Strategic Communications Plan they’d been working on for weeks.
This is a non-exclusive list. Trump worked his ass off over the Christmas holiday in 2020.
So it’s not that Trump (or his lawyers) are averse to working through the holidays.
They’re only willing to do so, though, when planning a coup.
A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:
— We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of a minimum of 8 letters.
— We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard. **
— If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of last October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.
Thank you.
Also, couldn’t Trump’s lawyers just work on it now, file it early, and spend Christmas doing whatever insane Karen stuff I imagine Alina Habba gets up to when she’s not working?
It’s not like they don’t know what they’re going to put in it – exactly the same stuff they put in the briefing to Judge Chutkan, with some additional whining about how unfair and racist Judge Chutkan is.
Yes, they could. But will not.
Brilliant and succinct, as usual.
Humble bow and much gratitude for your clarity and intensive labor over these years. Hope you have a nourishing and replenishing break sometime during the holdays.
The words struck me as so far from what one might expect to see in a serious legal pleading that I looked at the document. It does not from its first words even pretend to be legal. Of course Trump’s lawyers know the prosecution cannot come back and say “You are of course quite right. We wish this trial, whose essential charge is that the defendant attempted to subvert the electoral process of the USA, to take place before he can try do it all again.”.
The fun will be in seeing just how close they can get.
Unfortunately for him, he didn’t work his arse off then.
Re: “Trump worked his ass off over the Christmas holiday in 2020.”
Donald Trump – Putting the “pyg” in “steatopygia” since forever.
They love steatopygia and they cannot lie!
I hope your MAGA readers laughed as much as I did at the title.
See, the war on Christmas is too real! Carlson was right. Or did O’Reilly start that?
If you have a good faith claim of immunity you want it decided as soon as possible. The D.C. Circuit judges will see right through this and may well be offended by it.
They may also note the argument that is not made. Trump could have argued that the court of appeals should refrain from setting a briefing schedule until the Supreme Court rules on the pending cert petition, which seems set to go to conference on January 5. Indeed, he could have said that he intends to ask the Court to grant the cert petition. Instead, crickets.
A truly stupid response.
Yes, exactly.
From this non-lawyer’s uninformed point of view, it looks very much like that old saw about having a “fool for a client”. Trump might legally have lawyers representing him, but the work product looks decidedly Trumpian…
It’s not stupid if your principal strategy is to sell victimhood to and raise money from the rubes. But, yeah, it’s a stupid legal argument that won’t win him any points with the courts.
Web people, I can’t find the “thumb up” button for the above comment.
We don’t do silly emojis.
Granted, emojis ARE silly.
I also recognize that I’m not the center of any known universe, and that allowing/supporting even thumbs up/thumbs down reactions would have unforeseen (by me) consequences, because everything has unforeseen consequence.
But I’ve been endeavoring over the past year to comment much less frequently on posts here, and I hope I’m succeeding, but I could still cut my number of posts by 50 percent if the site allowed/supported thumbs up/thumbs down reactions. Without that, I usually comment to say “thank you”.
I do believe that was satire, or irony, or maybe both.
In a quiet voice…apologies to moderators and my wife for missing that autocomplete. Yes, it was I.
👍
[Moderator’s note: Emojis are discouraged here because the text-based search can’t pull them up, ex: we have no way of searching for all comments using a :Thumbs Up: emoji. Emojis also vary across equipment vendors and operating systems, which means not every community member may be able to read an emoji published here. Use emoticons or use your words or risk being moderated. /~Rayne]
Stop.
🤣
[Moderator’s note: Emojis are discouraged here because the text-based search can’t pull them up, ex: we have no way of searching for all comments using a :Rolling on the Floor Laughing: emoji. Emojis also vary across equipment vendors and operating systems, which means not every community member may be able to read an emoji published here. Use emoticons or use your words or risk being moderated. /~Rayne]
“Won’t win him any points with the courts” Not with the current courts and judges anyway. The point goes beyond making money however. The point is to de legitimize the courts, and judges. Making some coin for Trump is a trifle compared to the big prize. The party controlling the courts.
This filing is openly mocking the courts, as do many others in his far flung cases. The courts will continue to allow themselves to be mocked because there is nothing else they can do in most cases. Proceeduring themselves right off a cliff.
Not until judges are in place that understand, as German Justice Minister and Bill Barr grand daddy Franz Gürtner said, “If you cannot recognize the will of the leader as a source of law, then you cannot remain a judge.”
I lost count after Trump claimed the normal appellate process should take about four months through oral argument and a ‘final brief,” with a decision rendered some unknown time after that, which would then have to be taken up and acted upon by the district court.
He does not want a decision any time soon, which is what you’d expect from a guy convinced that all his arguments in all his trials are as much of a loser as he is.
Prolonging these court proceedings means more ELECTION INTERFERENCE. Shouldn’t an innocent, stable, former president genius want to minimize ELECTION INTERFERENCE by wrapping up this court stuff asap?
To sort this out, I’ll turn on Fox News.
Candidate Trump should be eager to resolve as many of these issues as can be done as quickly as possible especially since he’s sure the courts are going to find in his favor. snark. One would think he’d want to clear the boards on these motions so his candidacy can resume full throttle unclouded. He insist the trials are election interference yet resist expediency and instead inserts delay to the resolution of his claims. His only chance at immunity is if he wins the election, and that only through a self pardon.
Hopefully the courts proceed with all dispatch, and slay as quick as is prudent these daily dilly dally efforts being presented..
We can not put our faith in this election being held before Trump’s tials conclude or expect to see Trump running for president as a convicted felon. It might not happen that way. We really must begin to prepare to turn out every possible vote we can find against him.Beating him at the polls is the one plan achievable,. I hope and pray.
Rayne has said as much long ago.
In this election there will be no converts to be had, but there are many nudge worthy Biden voters who possibly wont come out without that nudge. The civil war has been scheduled. It is Tuesday Nov 5th, 2024. Be there. It’ll be Wild!
What is also truly stupid is the entire section II set of arguments on Due Process and 6th Amendment Rights pp 7-9 which is a litany of complaints about the volume of discovery and how unfair the March 4 trial date is, ( and how it’s a violation of 1st Amendment to try him then)
None of which have a bearing on the matter at hand, and indeed should his immunity claim be upheld those “problems” for him would disappear.
Thanks for those insights, Amicus. Surely the courts see the damage that Trump is inflicting on the court system with these motions and responses. For a proto-dictator, it’s probably a wise move, as. the message (Smith is a Grinch, and so is the Court if it ruins Christmas “for everybody”) is bound to be repeated and uncritically heard by the masses. But in the end, Trump is not only delegitimizing the Justice Department in the eyes of his followers, but (slowly yet surely) the authority of the federal court system as well.
When lawyers take a once-in-a-lifetime case, they know that all leave is canceled. Comes with the territory; presumably, they will bill for it. Trump is creative, though, in making the rubes think he’s a victim, and that he shouldn’t have to do what they don’t want to do: work for minimum wage and no benefits over the holidays.
That’s not what Trump the millionaire will do over the holidays, any more than he would pay the staff he once had double time to do it. He will, though, eat his little heart out with McDonald’s, and yell at the people who are working their asses off over the holidays, but for a helluva lot more than minimum wage. Next thing you know. Trump will be telling Judge Chutkan he’ll have to miss serving free soup and sandwiches to the homeless, unless she stops being a Scrooge.
Our honeymoon was put off for a year for this. Thankfully, Mrs. bmaz understood.
Really, bmaz? you had to delay your honeymoon for a case?
Ack!
Yes I did! It was one hell of a case though, pretty much the biggest I ever had or will have. It was okay, we spent a week in Napa when we were done.
Anyway, Trump isn’t paying his lawyers or experts himself, but through his SaveAmerica PAC. Wonder how that’s related to his campaign.
He still thinks it’s all his money, like everything else.
It’s me, or it’s not me.
No wonder Mary Trump sought counseling for PTSD after Trump’s election in 2016. Back then I thought great, we elected a bozo.
Now:
This ain’t no party
This ain’t no disco
This ain’t no foolin’ around.
We dress like students, we dress like housewives.
Or in a suit and a tie.
I’ve changed my hairstyle so many times now
I don’t know what I look like
Well, the headlines yesterday/today were “Trump Legal Defense Fund’s Biggest Expense Was Mar-a-Lago” so your guess is as good as mine.
As a side note, could profits from fundraising be seized after losing any of his court cases? If I recall, profits made from illegal activities are usually forfeit? Surprised there’s no mail fraud charge yet, maybe that’ll be for after the dust settles.
A more likely basis for an unlikely seizure is that he spent contributions for purposes not disclosed at the time he raised them, or for purposes not permitted by the campaign entity from which he took the money.
Trump’s opposition reminds me of the Pretenders’ song, Brass in Pocket, when Chrissie Hynde sings, “I’m Special (Special), So Special (Special)…The song is much better than his written opposition.
He’s got bottle, he’s gonna use it.
This post title reminded me of the little ditty:
“All I Want for Christmas, Is Coup!”
SC reply has come a day early
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24223066-121123-usa-reply
Pointing out that the schedule proposed here is not a fast as the expedited schedule in the gag order case recently before the DC circuit, in which Trump had argued for expedition because of the
constitutional issues at stake.
As for giving the matters due consideration- Trump has been doing that for months, including in August promising a very sophisticated motion on immunity to arrive on September 6 (to which self imposed deadline they didn’t adhere)
The Trump arguments about the volume of discovery belong in the district court
The DOJ aren’t proposing stealing Xmas, since their proposed schedule would require the brief by 23 Dec, not the day after Xmas.
And btw (fn 3 Trumps argument that expedition would somehow violate Trump’s First Amendment rights makes no sense)
Funny how that works.
My inner Beavis was tickled by the footnote asserting that, try as he might, the defendant cannot escape the holding of the Cobbledick case.
A lawyer should be ashamed to make this request to the Court.
Trump should have hired only non-Christian lawyers. Problem solved.
Not to get too far off-track here, but just about every culture has some sort of winter solstice celebration or festival. Christmas isn’t even particular Christian, in this part of europe it’s still known by it’s pagan navn, Yule.
Yule earn something new every day
Trump’s arguments in his opposition to expedited consideration is filled with his usual inventions, miscitations, and lies. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, for example, did not hold, as Trump claims, that a president has absolute immunity from civil claims. He has that immunity only when fulfilling his official duties, but he is not immune from civil claims arising out of conduct engaged in before and after his term of office. Yuge distinctions. Trump pixie dusts it away. And it does not hold he has any such immunity from criminal prosecution.
And not only does the argument miscite and misrepresent Nixon v Fitzgerald; in the same section of the argument pp 11-12 it misrepresents (wilfully misconstrues IMHO) Chutkan’s reasoning in her opinion.
Incredulous, I looked up the actual text, and they (the three law firms representing Trump) really did include a reference to a Dr. Seuss book (using it to paint the prosecutors as “Grinch.”).
How common is this kind of tactic?
What is its intended effect?
How will the Court of Appeals take it?
Not that this means anything to the general process, but it still is greatly annoying and upsetting to me.
And what is it with the Republican party fixation on Dr. Seuss? Wasn’t there a fairly recent RW blowup of “Green Eggs and Ham” with Cancel Culture or something like that?
Given Dr. Seuss’ regular stabs at authoritarians (King Yertle, that marvelous he, in “Yertle the Turtle”), greedy environment-devastating capitalists (The Onceler in “The Lorax”), race-baiting capitalists (Sylvester McMonkey McBean in “The Sneetches”), and of course Marvin K. Mooney from “Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Go Now!”, among others, it makes me wonder if Trump’s lawyers are familiar with Dr. Seuss beyond this one line from one story.
As a cub lawyer, I once inserted a Humpty Dumpty quote from Alice Through the Looking Glass into a draft brief. The partner took it out and gave me a tongue-lashing I never forgot. But hey, Ted Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham while filibustering over the Affordable Care Act, so I guess IOKIYAR.
It’s not common, but has been used to great effect before. I can heartily recommend reading The Onion’s Amicus Curiae brief to the Supreme Court in Nova vs Parma over the right to publish parodies. It’s brilliant.
The DC Appeals Court has granted Jack Smith’s motion for expedited appeal on the immunity case. Trump’s brief is due 12/23 (so his attorneys can have Christmas off!). The DoJ’s brief is due 12/30. Trump’s reply is due 1/2/24.
So now the overlapping timelines get very interesting.
Trump is due to file his brief in opposition (BIO) to the cert petition on December 20 (in 5 days). Because he wants delay, he is likely to argue that the Court should not grant the USG’s cert petition but instead await the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. As a practical matter he cannot argue that the matter is not cert worthy, he’s limited to arguing that it isn’t cert worthy now.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 15.5, Smith & Co. can elect to waive their right to file a reply to Trump’s BIO and once they submit such a waiver the clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to circulate the petition and opposition to the Court for its consideration.
Now, the next scheduled conference day is January 5. But this is the Supreme Court: they can act on the cert petition whenever they want and can certainly do so directly following circulation under S. Ct. R. 15.5.
Assuming the Supreme Court grants cert, this will divest the D.C. Circuit of jurisdiction. Rather than have the USG and Trump file unnecessary briefs with the D.C. Circuit, the Court can substitute its own briefing schedule – which could be highly accelerated akin to the D.C. Circuit’s current schedule.
There could easily be merits briefing to the Supreme Court before year end completed by early January. And there are reasons why the Court might want to write on this issue absent a decision from the D.C. Circuit.
That’s very interesting and informative.
The procedural manoeuvre waiving a reply in particular is an aggressive move but in keeping with the litigation tactics the SC has adopted on this issue. I am guessing, but in the calculus of whether to adopt this tactic, they will speed read his BIO to determine whether there is anything in it that requires a response, but the chances are that it will be more of the usual twaddle, so it seems a real possibility that they will do as you suggest?
I would not waive. But I would be ready to file the reply within 24 hours of filing and service of Trump’s brief. And keep it short and to the point.
That makes a lot of sense and in keeping with what the SC did in the DC Circuit, by filing a reply virtually immediately (albeit shaving only a day, but sending a clear message nonetheless).
A sound approach.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1734911482117190138.html
o/t: I just finished Brandi Buchman coverage of Giuliani’s trial. It’s heartbreaking. Also? Really incredible coverage. I know Marcy has recommended Brandi and she doesn’t disappoint. If you don’t want this here? just delete it. Thanks!
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Please also use the same email address each time you comment; the address you used on this comment appears to be disposable, meaning you would not have the same address next time you commented. We don’t even ask community members to have a working, validated email address, just one that they use each and every time they participate. Thanks. /~Rayne]
If you’re going to go with Dr. Seuss, you really need to commit to the bit.
Like this, related to the Mar-a-Lago national security document retention case:
Pikers.
Hat’s off to you Peterr – brilliantly done!
..read this just before bed last night, best laugh all week! A tip of the Port glass to ya,, Brava!!
Bravo! That’s worth cross stitching on a pillow or on a sampler to frame!
Well done, indeed.
But Docs on Russia, not yet found
In a binder loosely bound,
To the White House were commanded,
As then President demanded,
Docs to show the hoax was sound
Last seen with Meadows, homeward bound!
Dont forget, also on Dec. 23 and 24, Trump contacts A/AG Jeff Rosen to push for DOJ to investigate the “fraud” in AZ and PA. The 24th is when Trump, out of the blue, asks if Rosen “has ever heard of” Jeffrey Clark. Rosen said he didnt understand then why Trump was asking, but would learn a few days later from Clark about his discussion with the president to become AG.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
O how I wish I had the skills to draw the accompanying illustration!
It would include bankers boxes of docs knocked over.
Staffers carrying them piled unbelievably high on their shoulders.
Waiters bringing them in on serving platters, with dining room walls Pollock-painted in ketchup splatters.
Chandelier bathroom stuffed to the brim, with Top Secret files.
Done up, of course, in the recognizable Dr. Seuss style.
with the Cat in the Hat arriving to remove the ring of stain on the bathtub by spraying the foulness out across the land.
Question re the Supreme Court case re Presidential immunity. The claim of immunity rests on whether or not the acts in question were part of his official duties as President,within the outer perimeter, correct? Wouldn’t that be a question of fact to be decided by the jury in the lower court not by any appeals court? Could the Supreme Court rule that as a matter of law, he has immunity if the acts were within the outer perimeter of his duties and then send it back to the lower court to determine the facts?
Trump’s claim of immunity is asserted in two ways
1 broadly: absolute immunity from criminal liability for any acts while in office; alternatively
2 more narrowly:a) there is immunity from criminal liability for all conduct within the outer perimeter of the official duties of office {and b) so has the same breadth as immunity for civil liability} and c) all the conduct he is accused of is,as described by him, within the that outer perimeter.
Immunity has to be asserted at the outset of the proceedings, and as such it is judged against the conduct alleged in the indictment taken as true for the purpose of determining the factual basis to which it applies.
Trump in 2c) mischaracterised the allegations as set out in the indictment.
Chutkan distinguishes criminal liability from civil liability. And holds that the conduct as alleged in the indictment is clearly criminal conduct, and further there is no basis in the constitution or otherwise for the existence of any immunity for criminal liability for such conduct as alleged.
She explicitly refrained from entering into any consideration of an alternative basis for the decision ie examining what conduct may be inside or outside the outer perimeter, not least because Trump mischaracterised and misrepresented the indictment, thus thwarting any serious argument about whether individual pieces of conduct were inside or outside such a boundary.
If Chutkan’s analysis is upheld, Trump would still be able to argue that the jury should find him not guilty, and that each of the allegedly criminal acts were legitimate exercises of presidential duties.
More difficult questions arise if the Appeal Court or SCOTUS are inclined to a view that there is an immunity based on determination of whether alleged conduct is inside the outer perimeter etc.
One way to resolve the issue in such circumstances might be to remand to the trial court to resolve the question on further briefing specifically addressing the factual allegations. ( see the outcome of Blassingame)
“…taken as true for the purpose of determining the factual basis to which it applies.”
Yes. Trump is not even close either.
So the Supreme Court could rule that the President has immunity no matter what he does as long as he was President when he did it. That would end the case. That seems unlikely to me. The other would be that he has limited immunity based on whether his actions were inside the outer perimeter. In that case the answer to that question would be up to the triers of fact not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should not be ruling on whether or not the actions were in the outer perimeter.
It appears to me Trump raising immunity in a motion to dismiss is (a) procedurally advantageous to his overall delay strategy because it quickly gets him on the interlocutory appeal track, which usually entails substantial delays; but (b) substantively disadvantageous to his prevailing on this appeal because his entire appeal argument is a legal one, for a comprehensive new principle.
Judge Chutkan’s opinion only addressed Trump’s absolute immunity claim and said she “need not reach additional constitutional issues.” Even if a reviewing court wanted to establish a scaled back version of this new immunity, there are no proceedings below, no trial court decision, no evidentiary record with which to analyze the issue.
If I hadn’t been surprised so often, I’d be tempted to say there is not much the DC Circuit or Supreme Court could do with those other issues at this stage of the case.
If SCOTUS/DC Circuit would prefer a narrower rule than the categorical statement by Chutkan it would still be open to them to say that the conduct as alleged is not immunised by our more narrowly crafted rule.
And they are helped to reach that view by the circumstance that beyond bland assertion of abstract generalites, Trump avoided dealing with the facts as alleged in the indictment, and his abstractions amounted to a misrepresentation of the facts as alleged.
He asserts the immunity as a defense in bar, and bears the onus of laying an adequate foundation for that plea, which he has signally failed to do.
Other Presidents in other circumstances may be able to assert an immunity for allegedly criminal conduct, the success of such a claim would be dependent on showing an adequate justification in the particular circumstances, but we decline to speculate further.
Oh I definitely, when I see some names on caller ID, think ‘that’s a 2024 issue’, but I don’t have any legal compulsion on any of that…
Fact: Donald J. Trump believes, and is asking courts to confirm, that a U.S. president has absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.
Fact: Donald J. Trump is working to regain the presidency effective at noon on January 20, 2025.
Put these two things together and what we are looking at is Donald J. Trump seeking carte blanche to engage in a four-year crime spree with zero legal accountability. So far as I can tell, very few people have expressed concern about this, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.
“So far as I can tell, very few people have expressed concern about this…”
You can’t be serious.
You’re new here, aren’t you.
That’s not even a question, I can tell by the number of comments to date since your first in January 2022 that you have roughly a comment per month — you’ve not read enough comments here to make the assessment “very few people have expressed concern about this,” nor have you read enough of Marcy’s posts about Trump and the Special Counsel’s charges charges against him.
By the way: you have six usernames here to date — benfdcmd, BenFDCMD, BenF57DC, BenF.DC, BenFDC, benfdc — make sure you stick with this latest one as it complies with the site’s standard.
So … to my mind, stretching it beyond the limit … if his actions were to be considered on the outer limits of someone desperate to keep his job … that might be justification for … causing the deaths of 5 people, inciting an insurrection, nearly getting the Vice President publicly lynched and so forth? What’s the likelihood of the Supreme Court generating a response quickly (not quite sure of the coordination of timelines between the all of the courts, either). And any update on Thomas recusing himself from this deliberation? Thank you for devoting so much time and attention to addressing this topic – this is the only online site I have found that consistently (well, always, actually) critiques everything and gets it right every time.