What, actually, is a petard? And how is one to be “hoist” on it?
The famous phrase comes from Hamlet (III:4) in which the young prince devises a plan to turn Claudius’ (his nemesis/uncle) scheme against him. A petard was a name (from the French) for an early modern bomb or mine. The word “hoist” is adapted (as is much of Shakespeare’s diction), and means, in context, to be lifted up; in other words, that Claudius would be “lifted up” (blown up) by his own explosive plan.
It's a great phrase, along with “just desserts” (which, too, we have to translate a bit from its original context); meaning that someone gets what the justly deserve (nothing to do with cherry pie (alas) or the Sahara).
Either one will do for the situation now facing our late President (aka “He Who Shall Not Be Named”) in which there are four criminal proceedings pending or imminent for a variety of evil deeds. I’m sure librarians across the country are clearing shelf space on multiple bookcases for the ongoing flood of books on these events.
Barring some new surprise, he will run and, if the present state of the Republican field is any indication, he will get the nomination at the Convention a year from now. But our judicial process moves quite slowly, so even if convicted, he will appeal and is unlikely to be sent to Sing Sing or the federal pen (would he need to go to the Supermax (most secure) facility in Colorado so that he doesn’t get a shiv from some other inmate…?) before the election. And, in any case, we have the precedent of Eugene V. Debs, who was imprisoned by the Wilson Administration for sedition and still ran for President (as a Socialist) in 1920.
With all due caveats about an election more than a year away, and despite the generally favorable facts on the ground for the incumbent, the mood of the country remains sour and febrile. Joe’s no great shakes (except comparatively) and he might well lose.
However, before you start checking immigration visa sites for Canada or Costa Rica, we still have an ace in the hole. It’s obscure and speculative, to be sure; but that’s hardly a criticism in the current political environment (just ask the supporters of RFK Jr. or Doug Burgum).
After FDR was elected for the fourth time, we added the 22d Amendment to the Constitution to prevent further long-term office holders. It provides: “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice….”
Now, according to most folks, "HWSNBN" was elected once, in 2016. But, he claims he was elected in 2020 as well (and even for most of his supporters, 1 + 1 = 2). So, if he stands by his claim that he won in 2020, then the 22d Amendment would seem to bar him from being elected a third time and taking office again. In the (inevitable) law suit that would arise upon his reelection, in order to avoid this problem, he would have to argue that, in fact, he lost in 2020. Hmmm….
Note that the plain language of the Amendment speaks of election, not getting sworn in or taking office, so the fact that he chose to skedaddle down to Mar-a-Lago doesn’t avoid the Amendment’s prohibition.
Now, just for discussion’s sake, let’s assume that he says that he knew he wasn’t elected and willingly left the White House on January 20, 2021.
The clinching twist comes from the recent federal conspiracy charges that he sought to defraud the United States (and all of us!) by falsely claiming to have won the election, a claim which he knew to be false. Part of his defense will likely be that he did, in fact, believe that he won.
So, which is it, does he think he won, in which case the 22d Amendment presents a high hurdle to moving back to DC, or does he acknowledge that he didn’t win, contradicting hundreds of statements over the past 2+ years and undermining his defense in the conspiracy to defraud case?
It's quite a petard. BOOM!
The famous phrase comes from Hamlet (III:4) in which the young prince devises a plan to turn Claudius’ (his nemesis/uncle) scheme against him. A petard was a name (from the French) for an early modern bomb or mine. The word “hoist” is adapted (as is much of Shakespeare’s diction), and means, in context, to be lifted up; in other words, that Claudius would be “lifted up” (blown up) by his own explosive plan.
It's a great phrase, along with “just desserts” (which, too, we have to translate a bit from its original context); meaning that someone gets what the justly deserve (nothing to do with cherry pie (alas) or the Sahara).
Either one will do for the situation now facing our late President (aka “He Who Shall Not Be Named”) in which there are four criminal proceedings pending or imminent for a variety of evil deeds. I’m sure librarians across the country are clearing shelf space on multiple bookcases for the ongoing flood of books on these events.
Barring some new surprise, he will run and, if the present state of the Republican field is any indication, he will get the nomination at the Convention a year from now. But our judicial process moves quite slowly, so even if convicted, he will appeal and is unlikely to be sent to Sing Sing or the federal pen (would he need to go to the Supermax (most secure) facility in Colorado so that he doesn’t get a shiv from some other inmate…?) before the election. And, in any case, we have the precedent of Eugene V. Debs, who was imprisoned by the Wilson Administration for sedition and still ran for President (as a Socialist) in 1920.
With all due caveats about an election more than a year away, and despite the generally favorable facts on the ground for the incumbent, the mood of the country remains sour and febrile. Joe’s no great shakes (except comparatively) and he might well lose.
However, before you start checking immigration visa sites for Canada or Costa Rica, we still have an ace in the hole. It’s obscure and speculative, to be sure; but that’s hardly a criticism in the current political environment (just ask the supporters of RFK Jr. or Doug Burgum).
After FDR was elected for the fourth time, we added the 22d Amendment to the Constitution to prevent further long-term office holders. It provides: “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice….”
Now, according to most folks, "HWSNBN" was elected once, in 2016. But, he claims he was elected in 2020 as well (and even for most of his supporters, 1 + 1 = 2). So, if he stands by his claim that he won in 2020, then the 22d Amendment would seem to bar him from being elected a third time and taking office again. In the (inevitable) law suit that would arise upon his reelection, in order to avoid this problem, he would have to argue that, in fact, he lost in 2020. Hmmm….
Note that the plain language of the Amendment speaks of election, not getting sworn in or taking office, so the fact that he chose to skedaddle down to Mar-a-Lago doesn’t avoid the Amendment’s prohibition.
Now, just for discussion’s sake, let’s assume that he says that he knew he wasn’t elected and willingly left the White House on January 20, 2021.
The clinching twist comes from the recent federal conspiracy charges that he sought to defraud the United States (and all of us!) by falsely claiming to have won the election, a claim which he knew to be false. Part of his defense will likely be that he did, in fact, believe that he won.
So, which is it, does he think he won, in which case the 22d Amendment presents a high hurdle to moving back to DC, or does he acknowledge that he didn’t win, contradicting hundreds of statements over the past 2+ years and undermining his defense in the conspiracy to defraud case?
It's quite a petard. BOOM!
RSS Feed