As we can see in Trump’s third indictment, he could not be trusted in that regard. His advisers were planning to stage a coup, and also preparing to use the military to quash protests if that coup failed.
What's so batshit crazy about this is that the corporate news networks, covering this 24/7, never dwell on this for more than a second, if at all - which most don't.
This is what they do. They get out ahead of bad news for him by announcing it themselves and downplaying the wrongdoing. They seek to control the narrative, normalize what he did, and plant seeds of doubt. When the consequences hit, his supporters will be outraged due to all this brainwashing.
I think they're setting the stage for more Jan. 6 events.
Hi @gonzoleroy. Your submission is missing a label in the title. We also ask that users don't pontificate in the body of the submission. Start the conversation by adding the first comment. Use the body to share a few paragraphs copy and pasted from the story.
Okay so there's an aspect of law that's really needs to be considered when we talk about this 3rd indictment. Motive. So Trump's lawyers are asking the public to simply look at the actions that were taken. Which are questionable, needs a judge to iron out, but not massively culpable for the particular crimes Trump is being indicted on.
But when we look at what the DA is submitting before the judge, we see Trump talking, having arguments about knowing that what they are doing is questionable, and still continuing those things to elicit a much larger plan of delaying the counting of votes. This is where the conspiracy sets in.
It isn't that the actions themselves warrant the greatest concern, it's the underlying motive Trump had for doing the things he did that moves it into potentially criminal actions.
Like filing a lawsuit isn't any kind of bad thing. But if you file a lawsuit knowing that you're just doing it to enact some other aspect outside of justice for a perceived wrong, that's a frivolous lawsuit or can be a violation of the False Claims Act. Say your former boyfriend or girlfriend accuses you of some crime because you broke up. Filing the lawsuit isn't wrong in of itself, but when you consider the background details for why this lawsuit exists, oh boy are you in trouble now.
And that's where we are at with Trump. His angry speech is just that, a speech, but when there's emails going around indicating that Trump needs to fire up the group so they'll go marching on the Capitol, and that during that invasion of the Capitol Trump will start calling key people to try and get different slates accepted to be counted. Well now all that combined, that's the problem. No one thing in isolation is some massive "Oh no", but all together and it begins to become clear that the entire point was to "convince by any means necessary" any hold outs to Trump's idea of how the election should progress. That is a violation 18 USC §§ 1512(c)2.
From Trump's lawyer:
What’s the unlawful means? There was an effort to get alternate electors, which is a protocol that was used in 1960 by John Kennedy. And it was a protocol that was constitutionally accepted
And the thing is, it isn't that he just tried that. It's that there is a stack of emails and text indicating that the people attempting to work with Trump to do that thing knew that they were doing something that wouldn't be accepted by Congress, were told by members of Congress that they wouldn't accept it, and that a "plan" to "convince them" that they should accept it was needed to get them to accept it. That's the massive difference. It isn't the action in isolation that's at issue, it is Trump's team indicating that they will need to, in broad terms, help convince members of Congress to accept that new slate. That's interference. If you've cannot accept the answer and then motivate yourself to do things to change that answer you've already gotten, that's interference. Just like you cannot just keep on, keeping on in a courtroom after a Judge has ruled. It's over with, you got your answer.
So yeah, there's an attempt by Trump's lawyers to grossly simplify the conspiracy their client is currently facing. This is a pretty age old tacit of being a lawyer. It's like those bad videos where people jump out of nowhere on purpose to be hit by a car, then attempt to sue the driver, and then they fail at their act. Yeah, you can simplify that as "oh well they're just trying to cross the street..." But it's the motive that drove them to do the thing they did, they were motivated to do something in the commission of highly questionable conduct for monetary gain. So maybe they we're able to successfully convince the insurance you hit them or you had a dashcam. So technically speaking, they didn't get away with it. But just because they didn't actively defraud your insurance does not mean they did not still commit a crime.
That's the really important aspect of these new charges. All of the actions in of themselves aren't gross violations of the law, but they are manifest of a something deeper that was being carried out to defraud the US Government and overturn an election. That deeper part is what this indictment points out.
they're doing their best to cause as much chaos as possible, yeah.. that's all they've got.. like comic book villains throwing babies out windows so Spidey can't end their reign of terror..
It's the right play politically. Consider if the roles were reversed.
If Bernie Sanders was arrested for breaking into Walmart headquarters and demanding they unionize, he'd absolutely say something like "It's not about breaking the law, it's about standing up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet while the Walton family continues to amass wealth. That's what this is about. It's not about me, it's about us."
His supporters believe in his cause and they'd absolutely eat that up. I don't really get why people are so into thuggish authoritarian rule - but if that's what gets you up in the morning, then seeing Trump admit to this is surely exciting.
I was trying to come up with a hamfisted analogy and clearly missed the mark.
I'm pretty sure Bernie has actually been arrested at civil rights protest, so that's probably a better example. I actually think that makes him more qualified to be president.
Presumably trump enthusiasts feel similarly about his mounting list of felonies. I think that should immediately disqualify him from being considered as a candidate, but a lot of people obviously don't and I have to assume that's because they believe in authoritarian psuedo-dictatorship in the same way I believe in civil rights.
In a rational world this would completely shatter his chances for any presidential nomination from a major party (or probably the first indictment would)
However, there are a good number of people who believe so firmly in trump that they'll view this in exactly the same light as a left wing leader being arrested at a civil rights protest or admitting they smoked weed. To them this is a feather in his cap, it burnishes his credentials as being anti-establishment and proves whatever batshit conspiracy theories he's spouting.
I think democrats are too quick to overlook that risk and I think that's dangerous.
We all know that Bernie’s arguments have always been sincere and fact based. We know that Trumps are dishonest and held for his convenience, but the magas Don’t know or don’t care
FATHER: Please, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who. We are here today to witness the union of two young people in the joyful bond of the holy wedlock. Unfortunately, one of them, my son Herbert, has just fallen to his death. But I think I've not lost a son, so much as... gained a daughter! For, since the tragic death of her father —
RANDOM: He's not quite dead!
FATHER: Since the near fatal wounding of her father —
RANDOM: He's getting better!
FATHER: For, since her own father... who, when he seemed about to recover, suddenly felt the icy hand of death upon him, —
[ugh]
RANDOM: Oh, he's died!
FATHER: And I want his only daughter to look upon me... as her own dad — in a very real, and legally binding sense.
Events don't have to happen at the capital. Local governments could have problems. We'd have fewer problems if Republican leaders were more willing to throw Trump under the bus instead of trying to court his base.
The claim is that someone from his staff shared it on an official Twitter account, which is unverifiable. Unless you know some way to view deleted tweets that I'm not aware of.
I saw your report and did not act on it because this site ranks with an acceptable reliability score from the media bias chart we use.
As moderators, we cannot ascertain the veracity of individual stories from white listed sources. You can use the link in the side bar to check the reliability rating of any source before reporting it; we only remove items ranking below a 32 reliability score.
For what it's worth, I think the community is doing just fine at pointing out that a direct link to DeSantis isn't presently verifiable, and it is creating reasonable discussion.
Are you threatening me? Go ahead and ban me if this is how you want to run things. I meant it as feedback on the rules, if you can't take feedback on that please ban me.
The comment was not meant to be a threat but a statement of fact--you are welcome to participate or not.
Our rules, in fact, are entirely based on community feedback. Before implementing them, we had multiple discussions on what the users of the magazine wanted to see. We will also be reviewing the rules at a later date, so that people can share feedback on what they have liked and what they would like to see changed. However, we've had rules for something like two weeks at this point, so it's a little soon for that. You would be perfectly welcome to create a meta discussion on the topic. If one of the rules turns out to need addressing promptly, I'm sure we can do so, and that will also be based on community feedback.
Finally, no, we don't ban people just because they get angry about something and/or ask to be banned.
How about the New York Times, and it turns out it wasn't just shared by the DeSantis campaign, but produced by it and then sent to an "outside supporter" to actually tweet, so they could maintain plausible deniability.
One recent move that drew intense blowback, including from Republicans, was the campaign’s sharing of a bizarre video on Twitter that attacked Mr. Trump as too friendly to L.G.B.T.Q. people and showed Mr. DeSantis with lasers coming out of his eyes. The video drew a range of denunciations, with some calling it homophobic and others homoerotic before it was deleted.
But it turns out to be more of a self-inflicted wound than was previously known: A DeSantis campaign aide had originally produced the video internally, passing it off to an outside supporter to post it first and making it appear as if it was generated independently, according to a person with knowledge of the incident.
It’s subtle only in the sense that most regular people don’t know what the black sun is. My wife got me this keychain that had some pagan symbols on it with a black sun snuck in as well, she had no idea until I told her.
I admit I got all the way to the end waiting for the swastika, and figured, "eh, well it must be that thing."
Thing is, while I find this entirely plausible, unless there's an archive.org of the tweet before deletion, I don't think we can credibly tie this back to anything DeSantis wanted or approved.
He's in my top 5 list of people actively trying to destroy the US, but unless the provenance of the linked video can be proven I don't see this going anywhere. Folks who hate him aren't surprised, folks who don't will ask for more proof, DeSantis will deny if he acknowledges it at all.
My only pushback is how much evidence do you need? He's anti-latin, anti-gay, anti-teans and uses neo-nazi imagery.
Anyone that's willing to ignore one of those because it's not explicit enough, is highly suspect.
I completely agree with you, but that still leave the minds that will be changed by this existence of this video at zero, the way I read it. Yes it's appalling, but he was appalling before the video too.
Absolutely fair point I'm just saying I don't think the existence of this moves the needle in any way in the current environment. It can't even be used in a campaign smear against him without being verifiable as to its origin and his approval of it.
TL;DR: Entertaining, but not whatsoever the immediate career destroyer that it could have been, or that we all would have hoped for.
Seems like Florida and Texas are trying to out get rid of “big government” by removing all of the basic rights everything is based on. Its just consolidation of power for tyrants under the guise of “Freedom”
In reality they are creating their own Big Government to rule over all the local governments. Idiots that back and vote for them are completely silent about that tyrannical government they’ve been waiting to come knocking on their doors
Here's the issue - the video never actually confirms it's her. It looks like her from the back, and I bet you can find evidence online of the date that she wore that outfit and confirm it, but the right will just roll their eyes and move on. All this video serves is to rile us up against her.
If you're gonna interact with her and try to get a reaction from her on camera, make sure you get her face.
newrepublic.com
Newest