Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 115 of 438 (884341)
02-12-2021 12:14 PM


The First Three Days
I've watched all of the first three days of the impeachment trial. If news reports are accurate, few to no Republican minds have been changed. The jurisdictional vote received six Republican votes in favor, and something around that number are all that are likely to vote to convict.
The only reasonable goal now for the House managers is to convince the American people of Trump's culpability in the January 6th insurrection and of his unfitness for office. I'm going to begin watching the defense's presentation now.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-12-2021 3:34 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 438 (884372)
02-14-2021 12:40 PM


Trump Acquitted
I watched the entire impeachment trial from beginning to end. Trump was acquitted 57 to 43 with 7 Republicans crossing the aisle, a record for bipartisanship in an impeachment trial. Mitch McConnell excoriated Trump while justifying his vote to acquit on a highly questionable jurisdictional technicality. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also excoriated Trump while justifying her vote to convict. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also voted to convict and is expected to face tough reelection challenges within her own party in 2022.
Conviction at trial always faced very long odds, and the country is now no safer than before from the threat of Trump's political influence over the Republican party nor from the possibility of Trump running for president again in 2024.
We need some kind of legal protection from lying and manipulative demagogues, free speech notwithstanding. The success of a charlatan at convincing a large portion of the country of demonstrably untrue things is proof that some kind of protection of this sort is necessary. Democracy depends upon an informed electorate, and Trump proved it possible to render a large portion of the electorate profoundly uninformed. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once argued, people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. The cause of our current divisions is too many people accepting falsities as facts. They didn't invent this false reality on their own - it was told to them over and over again in tweets, news articles, talk shows, podcasts and rallies.
The country needs economic fairness, better access to healthcare, racial equality, reasonable immigration laws, improved infrastructure, and the protection from demagogues just mentioned. Those running for public office and promising these policies and reforms deserve your vote.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-14-2021 1:46 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 137 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-14-2021 1:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 153 of 438 (893963)
04-26-2022 7:57 AM


All The Chiefs Texts
All text messages from November 3, 2020 (election day) until January 20, 2021 (inauguration day) of former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows have been obtained by CNN (Mark Meadows' 2,319 text messages reveal Trump's inner circle communications before and after January 6 | CNN Politics). They reveal how shocked everyone within the Trump circle was at the events of January 6th as they unfolded, from family, to cabinet members, to Republican congressmen, and to supporters and hangers on, in contrast to their later denial of the seriousness of what took place. They also reveal how hard they all worked to overturn the 2020 election.
The first texts reveal everyone assuming Trump was at the driving force for the January 6th insurrection. Here are some choice texts from the article:
  • Mick Mulvaney: "Mark: he needs to stop this, now. Can I do anything to help?"
  • GOP Rep. William Timmons of South Carolina: "The president needs to stop this ASAP"
  • Donald Trump Jr.: "This his(sic) one you go to the mattresses on. They will try to fuck his entire legacy on this if it gets worse."
There's also a trove of texts about overturning the election. They reveal a wide range of positions, from skepticism about conspiracy theories to full-blown buy-in to actively pushing both legal and violent remedies. A number of texts were about preparations for January 6th.
--Percy
PS: I'm changing the title of this thread from "The Trump Post Presidency" to "The Trump Post Presidency and Insurrection". If there are objections or there's a better thread for insurrection discussion please let me know. I'm making the change because I had trouble rememberinf the right thread for insurrection discussion.
Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

Edited by Percy, : Formatting and grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Clarify.


Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by dwise1, posted 04-26-2022 9:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 155 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-26-2022 10:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 158 of 438 (894545)
05-20-2022 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Minnemooseus
05-19-2022 11:24 PM


Re: A huge list of insurrection defendants (justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases)
I believe I found a unique key to search on, and the count of defendants seems to be a little over five hundred (I got 541).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-19-2022 11:24 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-21-2022 2:34 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 170 of 438 (895459)
06-29-2022 10:18 AM


Cassidy Hutchinson Testifies Before the January 6th Committee
As I watched Cassidy Huthcinson testify before the January 6th committee yesterday I was struck by her maturity, articulateness, recall, clarity and command of detail. But then near the end she said this (full transcript of yesterdays hearing here):
quote
As a staffer that worked to always represent the administration to the best of my ability and to showcase the good things that he had done for the country, I remember feeling frustrated and disappointed, and really it felt personal. I — I was really sad. As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic.
It was un-American. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie, and it was something that was really hard in that moment to digest, knowing what I've been hearing down the hall and the conversations that were happening. Seeing that tweet come up and knowing what was happening on the Hill, and it's something that I — it's still — I still struggle to work through the emotions of that.
  —Cassidy Hutchinson
Here's the tweet Cassidy was reacting to (Trump's Twitter account has been suspended, so I can't present the tweet directly. In this tweet Jake Tapper sends an image of Trump's tweet.):
Cassidy Hutchinson said she felt "frustrated and disappointed" and "disgusted" at what she observed that day. Why then? Trump displayed no respect for Democracy since before he was elected, and Cassidy had a front row seat since she began working in the White House, first as a summer intern in 2018, and then full time as a special assistant to the president assigned to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in March of 2019. Why, nearly two years later, was it the events of January 6th that disappointed and disgusted her when there were so many prior opportunities to be disappointed and disgusted? What kind of horrible people had she worked for previously that led her to think that politicians behaving so horribly was normal? The answer is Senator Ted Cruz and Reprentative Steve Scalise.
As a staffer Cassidy could have focused on the mechanics of doing her job, but her testimony reveals that she has an excellent sense of right and wrong politically, legally and constitutionally. Why did it only come to the fore on January 6th? Why did this fine young lady work so hard and faithfully for some of the most horrible people in the world.
I was not able to find out where Cassidy Hutchinson is working now. Naturally she's in danger now, and she hired a security detail last week. A young aide, possibly unemployed, cannot afford a security detail, so she must be receiving some assistance.
Oh, I've got another Trump lie for the Washington Post database. When Cassidy first began testifying Trump said he'd never heard of her. Then later he said that she applied to join his staff in Florida after he left office and that he personally denied the request, and along with his standard claims of a disgruntled employee seeking revenge. It's the standard Trump formula. Disgruntled employees hate him, make up bad things about him, then testify about him under oath before Congress with the threat of perjury charges if they lie.
There's a great deal in Cassidy's testimony to digest, but there was one area of her testimony that was overwhelmingly devastating for Trump, not that it will influence the Trump base one bit. The security people for Trump's speech on the Ellipse on January 6th detected a great number of people with weapons, and these people refused to pass through the Secret Service's magnetometers to enter the audience area because their weapons would be confiscated. They instead remained outside the audience area.
It annoyed Trump that the audience area wasn't full, and so he demanded that the Secret Service let everyone through the mags, weapons and all, because "They're not here to hurt me." This request was denied. And he wanted to join these armed supporters in their march down to capitol, and when the Secret Service wouldn't allow it he demanded that provision be made for his motorcade to take him there. In other words, he wanted to be at the head of an armed mob in front of the capitol. He wanted to use violent means to either influence or halt the counting of the electoral college votes. This was denied, too. He was furious, and at one point apparently tried to grab the steering wheel of his car.
Is this enough to end Trump's hopes of retaking the presidency? I doubt it. It doesn't seem to matter much what politicians are guilty of, only how many votes they can get.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nwr, posted 06-29-2022 10:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 172 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-29-2022 11:18 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 173 of 438 (895611)
07-08-2022 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Tanypteryx
06-29-2022 11:18 AM


Re: Cassidy Hutchinson Testifies Before the January 6th Committee
Tanypteryx writes:
What struck me, over and over as I watched these Trump supporters testify, is the total lack of outrage at everything that fucking turd did to destroy OUR government and democracy for 4 fucking years. Those people think the only thing he did wrong was Jan. 6.
It wasn't just 4 years - he's still doing it. With every speech he further entrenches and broadens the view within the country that the 2020 election was stolen, and he's recruiting and promoting people to run for office who believe their job is to tilt the election machinery so that only Republicans can win.
Trump said he hardly knew Cassidy Hutchinson and had only heard negative things about her, such as that she was a total phony, a leaker, and bad news. Her account of Trump's actions in the presidential limo when he demanded to be driven to the capitol was a "fake story," as well as "sick and fraudulent." He also denied knowing that any of his supporters on the ellipse were armed.
What does Cassidy Hutchinson think of Trump now? An unnamed friend says:
quote
[She] believed in the Trump agenda but was devastated by what she saw once she was there.
...
It was a mix of everything, from the lack of structure to the infighting to the backstabbing and witnessing the character of the president that many went in admiring and realizing he is mean-spirited.
  —Hutchinson friend
And yet she continued working for Trump in a tiny anteroom just a 10 second walk from the Oval Office.
Many say they continued working for Trump hoping to mitigate his baser instincts, but I think every single one who felt that way failed. I think they told themselves, "Things will be less worse if I remain," yet in the end every single one was just a speed bump on Trump's path to having his way and none made any difference.
If only truly honorable men worked for Trump then each one would have lasted only a week before having to stand on principle and resign or be fired. Hypothetically Mark Meadows: "No, sir, I will not call the Attorney General and invite him to a meeting in the Oval Office to discuss overturning the election. You can fire me or ask me to resign or ask someone else to do it or make the call yourself , but I will not do it." Trump: "You're fired. Next!"
Trump demonstrated time and again the horrible human being that he is, and yet he has a solid base of supporters of many millions. I couldn't find a reliable count, but I would guestimate it at around 40 million. Brooking's Institute and NBC conducted polls where the same question was asked both before the 2020 election and at the beginning of this year: “Are you more a supporter of Donald Trump than of the Republican Party?” In 2020 the answer was 54% for Trump while now it is 46%. I don't consider that a significant drop when someone leaves office. The number of people who support Trump the man over conservative Republicanism is scary because Trump doesn't have a philosophy of government beyond, "Just give me what I want."
A few months ago in their issue on covid Scientific American ran an article about the myth of rugged individualism making American the best and strongest country in the world. People who think this way are Trump's best customers. Rural America is hollowing out from the inside, and as it loses the ability to support many workers and loses health care facilities and so forth, their reaction is to buckle down and work harder and just endure, because they're self-reliant and don't need help from the guv'mint or anyone else, not even a cooperative situation. Increased economic assistance and health care coverage? Pah! What they deny is that we are strongest when we work together toward common goals, but they sneer at such attitudes.
I had a surreal dinner conversation the other night with a very intelligent independent thinker (PhD MIT). The result of thinking for himself is that he now discounts anything in the mainstream media and finds himself listening to Putin speeches and Youtube videos by obscure academicians. I couldn't believe what I learned. The war in Ukraine is NATO's fault for threatening Russian security going all the way back to Chechnya and Georgia. Hot water freezes faster than cold water (false, of course, but with a basis in truth I later learned as long as the "cold" water is at 160 degrees and a special setup involving shallow pans to prevent convection is used). Grant ended the Civil War by invading and taking Richmond (also false, of course, though divisions of Grant's army did enter Richmond to restore order after Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House).
I mention this not to change the subject but because it was, for me, a very recent reminder of just how far out of the mainstream some people's thinking is. There's nothing wrong with independent thinking, but one's ideas must still be connected to reality, and this extremely bright person has somehow completely forgotten to do that and is instead following what appeals to him.
I think this kind of thinking is also typical of Trump supporters. They discount the mainstream media on the skimpiest of reasons, in this person's case that the global reporting staff of outlets like the NYT have been decimated and so they're forced to rely on independent correspondents who can't be trusted, meaning that even that a cruise missile struck a shopping center last week might not be true (I'll clarify by adding that he apparently accepts Putin's explanation that the actual target was the military facility next door and that an explosion of munitions caused the damage to the shopping center, this despite the video of a cruise missile striking the shopping center and images showing only a manufacturing plant across the street). Once one has justified ignoring typically reliable sources and has decided all sources are equal one can form whatever beliefs one likes.
I forget who said that very smart people are harder to convince of anything because they're brilliant at finding reasons for continuing to believe what they already believe. I'm reminded of Fred Hoyle who never stopped advocating for a static universe and who later in life independently developed his own reasoning for why the creationists were right (the old earth ones).
Sorry, I took the long way around for explaining why I not only agree that Trump supporters believe the only thing wrong he did was January 6th, but I'll raise you by saying that many don't even believe that was wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-29-2022 11:18 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 174 of 438 (895612)
07-08-2022 10:06 AM


What Does Trump's Resignation From Truth Social's Board Mean?
There's a type of financial entity called a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). They are formed for the purpose of seeking companies to acquire. It is against SEC regulations for a SPAC to know its target in advance before it is formed, but the SEC suspects that that is what happened in the case of Digital World Acquisition Corp (DWAC). Founded by Donald Trump, the SEC is investigating whether DWAC was created for the sole purpose of acquiring Truth Social, thereby giving Truth Social instant access to the financial markets.
It was recently discovered that Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. (and others), were removed from the DWAC board just a month ago (Exclusive: Trump left Sarasota media company weeks before federal subpoenas were issued). Who removed them? Why, Donald Trump himself. Why did they remove themselves from the board? Could it be that they had advance knowledge of the subpoena that would be served to Trump Media and Technology Group (owner of Truth Social) by the SEC later in June? And might he have had advanced knowledge of how a grand jury in the Southern District of New York was leaning, since they issued another federal subpoena at the beginning of July that often presages a criminal investigation.
I hope that leaving the board doesn't allow Trump to escape culpability for any breaking of the law that occurred while he still sat on the board.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 175 of 438 (895741)
07-17-2022 7:57 AM


Democrats Are Breathing Life into Allegations of Widespread Voter Fraud
It is common to hear something like, "There was no widespread voter fraud sufficient to overturn the election," or a variation, "We did not find evidence of widespread fraud that would have affected the outcome."
Every time Trumpists hear something like this they think, "So there *was* widespread voter fraud, they just haven't found enough of it yet."
But there wasn't any widespread voter fraud. None. Not anywhere in the country. If anyone thinks otherwise then describe the evidence of this widespread voter fraud here.
William Barr said it better: He had "not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."
But the more often the phrase "widespread fraud" or "widespread voter fraud" is used the more convinced Trumpists become that there *was* widespread fraud, we just haven't found it all yet.
We have to stop using any phrases using the terms like "widespread voter fraud" except to say there was none. Using such phrases makes Trumpists think things like, "The margin was 80,555 in Penssylvania. I bet they found 70,000 fraudulent votes for Biden. We just need to find a few thousand more of the fraudulent votes. And we need to put strong voter controls in place to make sure that all this widespread fraud never happens again.
In other words, they think it's a fact that there was widespread voter fraud, and they're acting on it and casting votes based on believing it. Stop qualifying widespread voter fraud by saying things like, "There was no widespread voter fraud sufficient to affect the outcome." Just say, "There was no widespread voter fraud. In fact, as in all prior elections, there was very, very little fraud at all." That's all that need be said.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-17-2022 12:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 176 of 438 (895742)
07-17-2022 8:51 AM


Dinner with an Independent Thinker
In a post last week I alluded to a "surreal dinner" we recently had with another couple, and yesterday we had an opportunity to get together with them again. The wives were going blueberry picking, and normally I wouldn't go, but the other wife's husband was going to go. When they told me he was coming then I said I would go, too. I figured we'd avoid talking about politics.
But then suddenly the friend's husband was tied up in a canning project and couldn't make it, so I didn't go either. I didn't think much of it until my wife told me later that her friend had said her husband had said, "Oh, is he going to school me again on all the things he disagrees with?"
I generally avoid discussing politics with friends who hold different views, but at this dinner the husband was not shy about his opinions. He's no dummy, earning a PhD from MIT, but for me his opinions were way out there. The Ukraine war was the fault of the US and NATO for not respecting Russia's security concerns. He said he listened to John Mearsheimer (here's a link to his lecture about why the war is the west's fault: The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer). He said he listened to Putin speeches and that they were worth listening to because Putin makes a lot of sense. He said mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post were unreliable now because they were mere shells of their former selves, having suffered greatly as the Internet ate away at their circulations. The missile strike on the shopping center? Propaganda. He mentioned a few websites I'd never heard of, but my suspicion is that they're right-wing websites. He implied I was uninformed for not following the same information sources he does.
I pushed back, and evidently I pushed too hard, because now it seems that he doesn't want to see me again. Someday I will have to learn to just nod neutrally as someone says absurd things that they read or heard on the Internet.
Oh, by the way, no vaccinations, either. He was right a couple years ago when he said it would become something endemic that we would have to just live with, but he pretended as if vaccines provided no benefit. He's big into environmental concerns and strongly believes in the interconnectedness of the world and that we're all in this together, but when it came to protecting your fellow man during a pandemic by minimizing the risk of being a spreader of disease, he was a no show.
As long as I'm changing the subject to covid I'll mention another friend who's a regular tennis buddy. He caught covid in late April, 2020, that turned into long covid. After a year and a half he was beginning to recover sufficiently to resume playing doubles, then he got sick again. He thought he had a bad cold, but the rest of us were all convinced it was another bout of covid, and it undoubtedly was, because his long covid got worse. When hitting tennis balls he can now last only 10 or 15 minutes, as long as he rests every five minutes. He doesn't believe in vaccines, either, or doctors or medicine in general. I've been gradually upping the pressure to get him to see a doctor, but yesterday I'm pretty sure I got my final answer: "No." At least he's still talking to me.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(6)
Message 184 of 438 (896634)
08-15-2022 6:44 PM


Update on the FBI Raid on Mar-a-Lago
As astonishing as the FBI raid on a former president's residence was, it was outdone by the Republican response. Initially they issued calls to defund the FBI while comparing it to the Gestapo, accused Biden of weaponizing the Department of Justice, and called for a congressional inquiry, to mention the more ostentatious. They were forced to switch horses after the unsealing of the warrant/inventory that listed 11 boxes of classified and secret documents, and now they're making different but equally absurd claims, like that Trump can simply declare documents unclassified, ignoring that not only is there a declassification process but also that under the three laws cited in the warrant, the Espionage Act, the Federal Records act, and Obstruction of Justice, the documents classification status isn't a factor.
Also amazing is the Republican turnabout on law and order, apparently only in favor when it suits them. They questioned whether the raid was necessary. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, theatened to investigate the Justice Department if the Republicans take the house next year. If any Republican was concerned about secret US documents being kept in the basement of a private citizen they kept it to themselves.
Trump remained characteristically unashamed and belligerent. He falsely claimed that Obama "kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified" and had them "taken to Chicago." The reality is that unclassified Obama documents are in a NARA facility in Hoffman Estates, IL, pending completion of the physical Obama library, while classified ones are in Washington DC in a very secure NARA facility. NARA is the National Archives and Records Administration, meaning that all Obama's documents remain in the hands of the United States government.
The Republican response also tells us that Trump's hold on the Republican party is as strong as ever. He has not lost his grip on that poor besotted and blighted party which likely has only two possible destinies: eventual demise or the ruling party of an authoritarian state.
A related item that recently received attention, when Biden took office he ordered that Trump not be provided the briefings that former presidents usually receive as a courtesy, judging him a security risk.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-15-2022 8:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 186 of 438 (896651)
08-16-2022 10:52 AM


Some Humor from Kellyanne's Husband
Here's a humorous opinion piece by George T. Conway III:
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 188 of 438 (896746)
08-18-2022 9:56 AM


The Trump Document Fiasco
I was composing within my mind a post again expressing puzzlement at the Republicans slavish worship of all things Trump when I discovered this opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post that says some of the things I was thinking: Trump has never been in so much peril. Nor has the GOP.
First Rubin describes all Trump's legal vulnerabilities, and I include here the one in New York that she left out:
  • The Espionage Act
  • Obstruction of justice
  • Theft of government documents
  • The phony elector scheme
  • The pressuring scheme on Mike Pence to declare some electors invalid
  • Incitement to riot and insurrection
  • Failure to carry out duties of office by not intervening in said riot and insurrection
  • Conspiracy to commit voter fraud in Georgia
  • Interference with performance of an official's duties in Georgia
  • Income tax violations in New York state
Then Rubin says exactly what I was thinking:
Jennifer Rubin:
Republicans are apparently willing to stick with Trump even if he’s caught red-handed in committing crimes.
And it actually goes way beyond that. Not only are they willing to stick with Trump, but they'll attack any person or entity enforcing the law with respect to Trump. Republicans don't care about Trump's possible violations of the law, all of them extremely serious, but only that someone's trying to hold Trump responsible for violating these laws. And they're coming up with all kinds of spurious excuses, not because they make any sense to rational people, but because the Trump base eats them up. These would be excuses like, "Trump declassified these documents by verbally declaring them unclassified on his way out the door," and "What capitol riot? Oh, you mean that peaceful 6th January citizen visit?"
The reason Republicans are doing this is clear. No matter how many indictments Trump eventually suffers, which realistically could be as few as zero and as many as three or four, they know that Trump can still sink them in the November elections. So they at a minimum steer clear of any criticism of Trump, and at a maximum heap praise on him while castigating anyone daring to hold him accountable.
2024 is pretty far off, but given how slowly the law moves it's possible the Republican party could nominate for president someone who is under criminal indictment.
--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add title to message.


Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 08-19-2022 8:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 189 of 438 (896754)
08-19-2022 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
08-18-2022 9:56 AM


Re: The Trump Document Fiasco
Apparently Trump's claim about declassifying documents has been distilled down to claiming that he had a standing order that any documents removed from the Oval office to the residence were automatically declassified. This CNN article gives the lie to that: Former Trump officials say his claim of 'standing order' to declassify is nonsense | CNN Politics.
Words used by former Trump administration officials, which include big names like John Kelly, Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton, to describe this claim were: patently false, bullshit, foolish, total nonsense, it can't just be an idea in his head, no evidence, never heard of it, ludicrous, ridiculous, laughable, the president can't just wave a magic wand, strains credulity, nonsensical, deeply reckless.
The article's worth reading because it describes why people characterized the claim using these words.
Of course, none of this matters. What's important is that the Trump base believes Trump's claim, there's a lot of them, they're motivated, and they vote.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 08-18-2022 9:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 191 of 438 (896910)
08-26-2022 10:00 AM


The Big Lies Just Keep Coming
Trump isn't the only one capable of telling the Big Lie. A couple days ago the memo to Barr outlining the reasons for not charging Trump with obstruction of justice was released, and it's one big lie, a total whitewash (Justice Department releases unredacted Barr memo detailing decision not to charge Trump in Russia probe | CNN Politics). I read the memo: Memo to Barr: Review of Special Counsel's Report. It's only eleven pages long and it is written in plain language that is comprehensible, even though the reasoning isn't.
The big lie in the memo? That the only reasonable conclusion is that Trump could not have obstructed justice for a crime he wasn't convicted of. In their bizarro world, if you obstruct justice to the extent that you escape conviction then you didn't actually obstruct justice.
Think of it. In their world if captured bank robbers intimidate or even murder witnesses and eventually escape conviction then their witness tampering efforts were not obstruction of justice.
Let me give an example from the memo:
Memo to Barr:
The [Mueller] Report thus suggests that the President's exercise of executive discretion for any improper reason, including the prevention of personal embarrassment, could constitute obstruction of justice if it impeded a pending investigation. As we have discussed with you, we do not subscribe to such a reading of the obstruction-of-justice statutes.
The style of writing minimizes and obscures its serious problems, so let me translate. They're saying that if the President has an "improper reason" (their example is preventing personal embarrassment) for any exercise of his legitimate power that impedes an investigation, it's not obstruction of justice.
Here's where they discuss Trump's efforts to impede the Special Counsel's investigative efforts:
Memo to Barr:
The Special Counsel considers, for example, whether the President obstructed justice by asking the White House Counsel to direct the firing of the Special Counsel; by asking Corey Lewandowski to contact the Attorney General and seek his assistance in narrowing the Special Counsel's investigation; and by asking the Attorney General to reverse his recusal and to supervise the Special Counsel's investigation.
Firing Mueller, narrowing his investigation, and asking the Attorney General to supervise his investigation are all unambiguously obstruction of justice, yet the memo goes on to assert that they are not obstruction of justice. One example of their reasoning is that White House Counsel Don McGahn didn't actually carry out the order to fire Mueller, therefore Trump did not obstruct justice.
Think about it. In their odd legal world if an attempt to break the law fails then it isn't actually breaking the law. In their logic trying but failing to obstruct justice is not a crime. Can you imagine any defense attorney arguing that because the bank robbers he's defending were apprehended before they actually obtained any money that they're not actually guilty of a crime?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2022 10:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 193 of 438 (896924)
08-26-2022 5:23 PM


"It is all politcs!"
quote:
This is a grave travesty, and what is unredacted only further supports President Trump’s position, there was NO reason for a raid — it is all politics!”
  —Trump spokesman
The affidavit provided the judge by the FBI to obtain the warrant for their raid on Mar-a-Lago has been released: Affidavit in Support of an Application Under Rule 41 for a Warrant to Search and Seize. Unfortunately this PDF is not searchable or copy/paste-able (but I like Document Cloud and am hopeful they'll update it with an improved version soon), so here's another from the Washington Post that is: Affidavit in Support of an Application Under Rule 41 for a Warrant to Search and Seize
The long and short of it is that the earlier recovery by the National Archives of 15 boxes of material brought to light 184 classified files. More than half the affidavit is redacted, and a separate partially redacted document also unsealed today says that the redacted portions name the many individuals who provided information. Quoting from this other document, the redactions were necessary to:
quote:
...protect the safety and privacy of a significant number of civilian witnesses, in addition to law enforcement personnel, as well as to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation and to avoid disclosure of grand jury material.
Of course all Trump has to do is call it politics and a witch hunt and his supporters will believe him. Considering the evidence on the merits independent of Trump claims isn't a trait common among them.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2022 7:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024