THE NATIONAL CURRENT

Well, the White Christian President got hit with 37 counts of federal crime this week, which, as counts of federal crime go, seems to me like a lot of federal crimes—for a presidential candidate, anyway.

What did he do? Oh boy!

https://armoxon.substack.com/p/the-national-current

The National Current

The benefit of the doubt, the doubt of the benefit, and presidential precedent in a country allergic to truth and consequences.

The Reframe
He took nuclear and other secrets acquired from his old job, and he shoved them into banker’s boxes that he stored in his somehow-simultaneously-gaudy-yet-squalid-bathroom and other places, and he travelled around with them, and he showed them around to various people to impress them with what a big shot he was, and he obstructed all attempts by federal agencies to retrieve them, and there is damning evidence that he did all this in full knowledge that he was breaking some rather serious laws.
And there are many other crimes he committed as well, some of which I believe he’s under investigation for and others of which—like using the office of the presidency to enrich his private business—he was simply allowed to do without consequence, making that previously unprecedented act something very precedented indeed.
Anyway, the White Christian President is observably an abusive and corrupt criminal, yet all of this just seems to make him more and more popular with Republican voters and Republican politicians, even the ones who are running against him for president, all of whom came to the defense of the boss whose job they hope to gain without actually ever fighting him for it.
So we’ve been treated to the nauseating spectacle of Kevin McCarthy and Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy and even Mike “Mommy” Pence (who Trump tried to assassinate via mob a couple years back), all lining up to decry the Justice Department, an agency that is tasked with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes, for …. investigating and prosecuting federal crimes, an apparently unprecedented thing for it to have done.
And many of these denouncements of the Justice Department’s pursuit of justice have been accompanied by veiled or not-so-veiled threats of retaliation and retribution, some of them political, and some of them violent, but none of them distinguishing the Republican Party’s elected officials from, for example, the version of the New Jersey mob that we all enjoyed watching on HBO’s "The Sopranos."
All this pretty clearly (and yet again) exposes the Republican Party as a criminal organization, supported by a supremacist movement that’s perfectly comfortable with corruption and crime and abuse and political retribution and incitement to violence, provided all the crime and abuse benefits the right people, or at least hurts the people who they believe ought to be hurt.
You’d think the Republican Party being exposed as an open criminal organization with supremacist leanings would be viewed as a problem for Donald Trump and Republicans, and to a degree, I suppose it is—after all, Trump will have to plead guilty or face trial, and the Republican Party will have to explain again and again why the man who will almost certainly be their candidate may very likely be heading to white-collar-tennis-court prison.

So yes, practically speaking, these crimes are a problem for the perpetrators.

But I know I’m not the only person who has noticed that the national current runs the opposite direction.

Apparently prosecuting a flagrantly criminal ex-president and current presidential candidate is dangerous, and inherently political, and unprecedented, in ways that running a criminal as a candidate for president isn’t.

Apparently talking about the Republican Party accurately as an anti-democracy fascist criminal organization would be far more biased than pretending the lie that they are still a viable political party interested in participating in the governance of the country.

Apparently, a White Christian President’s crimes do not corrode the rule of law, but using due process to charge him with crimes and giving him his day in court will demolish it entirely.

Apparently, giving a White Christian President his day in court represents destabilizing political retaliation, while threatening political retaliation in response to due process is a normal and expected reaction for members of the White Christian Party to have.

We just keep looking forward, not back, mostly so we won’t have to see all the things we’re leaving behind in the rearview mirror, things like millions of victims, and fair and free elections, and free speech, and a woman’s right to receive basic reproductive healthcare without facing prosecution.

Refusing to look backward is almost always framed as unifying and positive, while looking backward and reporting on what we see is almost always framed as divisive and negative. We’re not interested in unity with victims, it seems.

Unity is a gift we save for the perpetrators.

It’s an acknowledgement, made without even the intention to do so, of who counts and who doesn’t.

The White Christian President counts.

The people who he has harmed and killed do not, nor do those he will harm and kill in the future if he isn’t stopped.

To digress somewhat: as White Christian President was being charged for his 37 federal crimes, Pat Robertson died, which is one of the best things he’s ever done.

In case you don’t know, Robertson was a permanently-elderly gnomish televangelist kept alive for decades by pure living and even purer hate, and he is the reason your sainted granny spent her final decades falling into a far-right reactionary supremacist cult, or at least he’s the reason mine did.

Robertson rather famously never let a tragedy pass by without hopping onto the TV to point out that the latest tragedy was God’s wrath on the country for not being an authoritarian theocracy, or God’s righteous vengeance upon the nation for failing to become a perfected example of white christian supremacism—a failure which mostly involved letting women be recognized as human beings under the law and permitting gay people to exist, and so on.
He’s one of the people most responsible for white christianity’s unholy marriage to far-right politics, and for there even being such a thing as a White Christian President in the first place, and if you wish we lived in a world where so many of our friends and family hadn’t been completely lost to a national supremacist hate cult, there are only a few people you can blame more for that particular state of affairs than Pat Robertson, who lived a life worth mourning.
And with his passing, we had the usual discourse that attend the passing of a serial abuser. Some people spoke of Robertson for what he was, which was a sort of spiritual kidney stone, and of the horrible things he had made a career of saying, and his contributions to demonization and harm of marginalized people. And they spoke of their relief at his passing, which is an appropriate way to talk about a kidney stone of any size.
And on the other hand, the usual voices remonstrated against this outpouring of truth, scolding how inappropriate it was to use the passing of a toxic man to discuss how toxic he had been, even though it seems to me that even if you think Robertson’s death is tragic, the most appropriate way to honor the legacy of a such a man would be to frame the tragedy as God’s righteous judgement upon those who are mourning that tragedy.
Maybe God decided he liked gay people after all, and that’s why he killed Pat Robertson; at the very least saying so certainly fits Pat Robertson’s definition of what would be an appropriate thing to say when people die.

It seems that for a lot of people, there is a danger in letting an abuser’s abuse be remembered for what it was; something more troublingly unseemly about acknowledging abuse as it ends that doesn’t apply to its long decades of approved continuance.

It seems that on a fundamental level, those who mourn the passing of an abuser count, and those who were forced by his abuse to mourn his life do not.

I think it speaks less to a desire for decency and more the ways we would like to remember indecency. Or, more accurately, the way we’d rather forget it.

This is seemingly instinctive and automatic, like an allergic response; a rhetorical sneeze expelling consequence for abuse from the national system like ragweed pollen.

It’s unmissable, once you’ve seen it.

It’s also invisible, if you don’t want to see it.

Not seeing it is treated as normal—precedented—in a way that seeing it is not.

@JuliusGoat you keep referring to these Heretics as Christians and, well, maybe there's the problem.

@JuliusGoat relatedly, in the UK, ministers lie in parliament all the time, and they suffer no repercussions.

However, if this is pointed out by another person, that person is at fault for daring to accuse the liar of lying

The rules are based upon the belief that those in power will be honourable and act with the best of intentions, when the opposite is true more often

@JuliusGoat

#TranslatedFromTheRepublican

"Republican billionaire donors fund malign influence narratives to create 'alternative facts'.

Those 'facts' are always backwards and upside down like any other propaganda campaign. "

@JuliusGoat

Crucifixion, I guess, is out of the question

@JuliusGoat Jesus Christ, Donald Trump is a Christian? That possibility had never occurred to me, to be honest.

@fgbjr @JuliusGoat

I'll interpret it as he's the president of white christians, but he himself is not a christian, and is just using them as they are him.

@JuliusGoat and people died becuase of it. People who were working to protect America!