One is a conspiracy charge:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...robe-rcna79343
Printable View
One is a conspiracy charge:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...robe-rcna79343
Good. The MAGA King deserves to get indicted,and he can claim that he's innocent all he wants,because innocent people would have done the right thing,instead of attacking prosecutors on his fraudulent social media platform,and throwing temper tantrums like a petulant child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
And things are going to get a hell of alot worse for the MAGA King Donald Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
I don't think anyone is surprised at the hysterical reactions of Fox News, Stephen Miller, Elon Musk or the man himself, though it does beg the question -What does the Presidential Records Act of 1978 say with regard to Presidents and their documents? Roger Stone might not know the law has changed, as he remains a devotee of Richard M. Nixon, who would have been the first President to be indicted had Gerald Ford not pardoned him.
The law is utterly simple in its main provision-
"This Act stated any records generated during a Presidential administration documenting the constitutional, statutory or ceremonial duties of the Presidency are the property of the United States".
Presidential Records Act | Ronald Reagan (reaganlibrary.gov)
The Prima Facie evidence that the Court must assess, is that Trump and his lawyers were fully aware of their obligations under the law; that Trump deliberately prevented documents from being handed over to the National Archive; that among them were sensitive documents of National Security importance (at least one of which, on Iran, cannot be found). Perhaps those defending Trump can step forward and tell is why Trump took these documents.
It don't look good, but the wheels of justice grind slow, and it might not be until this time next year that the Court is sitting in judgment.
Georgia could still indict him. The DOJ could also still indict him over January 6th.
On a general level I would have thought the Georgia case is the most serious, as it is a direct interference in the election process, and I just can't understand how any lawyer would have advised Trump to make that call, unless they were not aware that it was being recorded. The violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978 is just as blatant, with evidence now containing an audio of Trump boasting about classified military documents that he had retained for himself, as quoted in the link below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
I wonder if the Jan 6 is harder to prove in Court. But for all the hysterical drivel of Josh Hawley and Kevin McCarthy, not only is this about the rule of law, the Grand Jury indictments, and the actual lack of any involvement by either President Biden or Merrick Garland, it is really just the consequence of promoting to the Presidency a man with proven links to organized crime going back to the 1990s, who has been associated with more men tried and convicted of crimes in a Court of Law than any other President -at what point did the idiots who enabled Trump from the start wonder if his past would ever catch up with him, and his Big Mouth make a lawyer's job all but impossible?
Trump boasts about having non-declassified papers in bombshell recording: ‘I have a big pile’ (yahoo.com)
More information relating to the indictments has been released today. I won't be able to look at it until later but Jonathan Turley apparently said it was damning. This is a guy who has bent over backwards to defend Trump. Lied for him. The consensus is that it's gonna be hard to defend him.
His lawyer’s resigned earlier today, it’s clearly a prime resigning day all over the globe.
37 counts! and thats just this case.. two more upcoming
No not at all surprised by the hysterical reactions from the so-called journalists at the Propaganda News Channel,or the right wing loving assclown and twitter troll Elon Musk. No it sure doesn't,the MAGA King Donald Trump is in serious trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I don't know the actual figure, but I estimate Trump has hired more than 100 lawyers since the election of 2020. Did not one of those professionals ever tell him he does not have the legal right to retain a single classified document? The legal skills of John Eastman and Cleta Mitchell may be limited, but the law is so stark on the case of documents, I can't believe even a mediocre lawyer doesn't know the law.
As for the files on nuclear and military strategy, some with a focus on Iran, who would be interested in them? A) Israel, and B) Saudi Arabia. Kushner and his wife with their impeccable connections to both countries, might not be regulars at Mar-a-Lago, but one wonders if Trump retained these files to 'monetize' them- but has he made a dollar out of them? We might never know.
The MAGA Party Spin Machine is in full effect with the Spineless Coward Kevin McCarthy,Chickenshit Mike Pence and others coming to their leader the MAGA King Donald Trump's defense,by making false accusations that President Joe Biden,Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Democrats indicted Donald Trump,when in reality it was special prosecutor Jack Smith and a Grand Jury that indicted Donald Trump. No one should be surprised that the enablers in Congress and Senate are choosing the MAGA King over the country,because this is the path they chose. And will eventually lead to their downfall.
As is often the case with Trump, the striking thing about this is how flagrantly stupid he has been. It looks like he has been caught out in a clumsy attempt to hide classified documents simply because he wanted to keep them to show off to people.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1735...menal-self-own
Of course, it could be that he doesn't care about being indicted because he thinks it will help him win the nomination, but I think to most people it just underscores how reckless and incompetent he is.
And then there are the Americans who claim they would go to war with their own country for Donald Trump. The Congressman who posted 'cryptic' police/military messages suggesting his supporters get ready for war. That he would never go to war for them is it seems, of no importance. For most of his life Trump has considered himself infallible, so by definition, any and all criticism of him must be false. Were he on camera shoplifting, he would insist the images are not of him.
He cannot win the Presidential election, it is only through a rigged Electoral College that he could return to the White House, assuming he has not been sent to prison, though the slow pace of justice in the US suggests he will not.
One night in Miami? Robert Reich isn't absolutely sure, he says
"Violence is possible, but there will no civil war."
There will be no civil war over Trump. Here’s why | Robert Reich | The Guardian
Not much consolation for anyone who does get hurt, and for what?
No it sure isn't,because the imbeciles who support the MAGA King Donald Trump have been brainwashed by him and his enablers,that him getting indicted by special prosecutor Jack Smith was politically motivated and a witchhunt,which is bullshit. Donald Trump brought all of this on himself,and has no one to blame but himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I’m much more interested in seeing Trump accountable for attempted election tampering in Georgia, and for the range of violations resulting in the January 6th assault on the US Capitol building.
But there seems to be a pretty solid case here, which I’m not complaining about ;)
How is that Trump has again drawn the judge he appointed, who previously made dubious rulings in his favour?
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...-case-00101641
It's notable that none of the people loudly screaming "witchhunt" seem to even bothering to mount a defence of his actions. Trump's explanations have been shifting, but he seems to be arguing that he had the right to declassify these documents and treat them as his personal property. Are these people seriously saying they are okay with sensitive national security documents being handled like that? Yes, I know the real answer is they just don't give a shit.
In addition, one marvels or not, at the hypocrisy of people like Little Jimmy Jordan and Lindsay Graham instantly referring to Hillary Clinton when being asked about Trump's documents crimes -Clinton was never President, a fact so obvious it merely dismisses the comparison. That said, I don't know if the Presidential Records Act, or some other law governs the retention of documents for Govt officers, such as the Secretary of State. With regard to emails, again I don't know if every email must be retained, which would be a waste of storage space as most of the emails Clinton had were circulars. Moreover, whatever it is that she is accused of that is a charge legally not proven, the problem with Trump is that unless he can prove the documents in Florida were de-classified, he has to explain what he was doing with them.
If the Judge and Jury are sympathetic I guess they can put it down to him being old and careless -but where does this leave his lawyers? And if he is found guilty, a) he will get the most lenient sentence, and b) begin the process of appeal to drag the case into the next year, or two years.
Here is another comparison: in the UK, Boris Johnson's arrogance is losing him support among Conservative MPs, whereas in the US Trump's arrogance seems to encourage it among members of Congress.
Is the US now so sectarian it cannot be repaired?
Meanwhile, in another democracy, a former leader was arrested without anyone claiming witchhunt or theatening trouble.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1735...former-leaders
The BBC News channel was reporting live from Bedminster last night, but after a few minutes of 'not of this world' drivel, they cut away to return to their panel, one of whom argued that Trump didn't even seem to know what the law was that was being used to try him.
One new thing I think -a member of the public outside the Miami courthouse said the US was becoming like Nicaragua and the Democrats, Biden in particular like the Sandinistas- and after court, Trump went to a 'Latino/Cuban' cafe, while the links are now being made to Latin American dictatorships in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua -is this something to do with the identity of the Jurors in the trial?
Are all 'Latinos' right wing 'Conservatives'? Is this a risk, or just not a risk in Florida?
And, one notes, at one time, it was the US who was directly or indirectly protecting or sponsoring military dictatorships in Latin America, from El Salvador south to Argentina.
As for the boxes containing shirts, shoes and socks....earlier in the day Trump claimed they were planted in Mar-a-Lago by the FBI. The man is unhinged and everyone can see it, so why do they still ride with him?
I'm really getting tired of all of this, fringe right and fringe left are all bad. Someone has to have some sense and play in the middle.
Can I ask who you refer to? Is it not the case that the 'fringe right' is now at the centre of Republican Party politics, and with the aid of Fox News and the 'Christian' Evangelists has established the most extreme agenda in US politics since at least the 1950s?Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
Fringe left is a difficult one for someone in the UK like me, as what I assume to be it really is on the fringes of US politics, though I guess if you refer to some BLM and Trans activists they can make a lot of noise -but the Democrats and Biden occupy the centre ground- maybe the party has not moved on from the Bill Clinton era and needs a more progressive agenda suited to the needs of the 21st, rather than the 20th century -??
I find it comical or absurd when Trump refers to Marxists, as I don't believe he has a clue what the term means, but knows it 'scares' people.
No country can survive with either fringe being the ruling party. I've voted both left and right in my life, so I try to see things from both sides. Bill Clinton did a lot of good for this country was he was forced to the middle. Trumpdid many good things while he was in office< but it is time for him to move on because this election for him is more about revenge and that isn't good. And Biden has always claimed to be a centrist, but he's the guy that led to taxing social security. As president, I truly believe that he is not in charge of anything. He's closing in on three years and still only takes scripted questions from certain reporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
That's just misinformation. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/po...ecurity-taxes/Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
"In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, with congressional leaders, convened a bipartisan commission to study the issue. In 1983, that commission issued a report that formed the basis for amendments to the Social Security program. Among the recommendations in the report was that benefits be taxed as income for recipients who had income over a certain threshold.
The bill that included that change to the program passed in a bipartisan vote in 1983. Biden was one of 88 senators who voted for it. Only nine senators voted against it.
When Reagan signed the bill into law, he praised the bipartisan effort in his remarks and was joined by members of both parties."
What does any of this have to do with the charges against Trump anyway?
Thanks for your reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
A country can survive extremism in politics, but in a damaged form, and too much time is then taken up by successors trying to repair the damage -this is what has happened in the UK with Brexit, and it appears it will be years before the UK can repair the damage done by Boris Johnson and the other supporters of Brexit. If the UK has not fallen apart, that might be due to the crisis in the Scottish National Party that has deferred a new Independence Referendum for years.
Moreover, while I understand the Americans have a different definition of 'Left' and 'Right' from mine, if 'centrism' means Democrats and Republicans doing more or less the same thing, then even Trump was a Centrist. His alleged idol, Ronald Reagan famously declared 'Govt is the problem, not the solution', but did little to disengage the State from the Economy, which ought to be a litmus test of any fidelity to Free Enterprise and Free Markets.
Trump did not disengage the State from the Economy. Throughout his life has relied on the tax payer to give him the loans he used to fund his buildings, just as he has posted business failure after business failure to claim compensation from the tax payer. Did he reform the tax system to ensure that tax payers don't reward business failure? Of course not. His 'tax reforms' were just benefits for the rich, just as his massive subsidies to agriculture were based on his catastrophic trade relations with China, and his personal belief that if tax payers are subsidizing his life, they may as well reward failing farmers.
So what did Trump achieve? I don't see anything
-the border wall the Mexicans didn't pay for, which was never completed and never effective in preventing the cross-border passage of illegal immigrants
-the promotion of a repeal of Roe-vs-Wade through his judicial appointments has lost the Republican party votes in every election in States since the Supreme Court decision
-he approved the assassination of Qasem Suleymani, but was a stunt -when the Iranians retaliated by killing Americans in Iraq, Trump got scared and backed off an escalation (which was what John Bolton wanted).
-Trump negotiated with the Taliban the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, though it was Biden acting on that agreement who was more heavily criticised
-Trump lauded the 'Abraham Accords' that saw Middle East dictatorships that already had relations with Israel, formalize them, presided over by a man, Jared Kushner who, along with his Father and Brother, have financial investments in Israel; rarely has American foreign policy been more concerned with the financial interests of the President and his relations, than the USA as a country
-Trump's mismanagement of the Covid pandemic is a scandal -not only did he dismiss the science from the start, when it was his moral and Constitutional duty to support the most affected States -Washington, Michigan and New York, he swamped them in insults and abuse instead, while his son-in-law Jared Kushner actually deprived the State of New York of Federal PPE in order to make the Democrat administration there look weak and ineffective. As for promoting anti-science doubts about vaccines and lock-downs, one could argue Trump should be in Court as an accessory to murder, though to some extent the Governors of States, such as De Santis are also in the frame for these crimes.
-the war against Science did not just increase the unnecessary deaths from Covid, but is integrated into the ignorant drivel Trump and his supporters say about Trans issues, from the attempt to throw Trans Americans out of the military to the weaponizaton of children as part of their preposterous defence of 'the Family', as defined by 'Christian' evangelists.
-Trump demeaned the Office of the President because he never understood what it means. He inherited the CEO position in his father's firm, he never worked his way to the top. As CEO he barked orders, and they were obeyed, and that is how he viewed the Presidency, and because he has no humility or an understanding of what work is, he cannot adjust his perspective to see how unsuitable he is for the Office, though most Americans never considered him fit for that office.
-He says he 'rebuilt' the military but it wasn't in need of repair. But he did heap insult and abuse on veterans, just as he spent years insulting and abusing Americans. He called Hillary Clinton a 'skank'; he said of Americans who don't like him, 'they're scum'. The language of a jerk, not the President
-As for policies on gun control, narcotics, homelessness -four years of Trump led to a deterioration across all three areas and many lost and damaged lives.
One final thought, about 'the Border'. Why have so many Central Americans given up on their own country to head north? In four years, did Trump ever take Central and Southern America seriously as partners, neighbours, even friends? Surely if the US wants to stop illegal immigrants from 'the South', it should have a 'Southern Strategy'? Trump has no idea what strategic thinking is, and I doubt he ever bothered to either read expert reports on ''Latin America', or take notice of anything said to him, because he elevates his ignorance into wisdom, and his incompetence into genius.
So on fundamentals, the Americans remain divided as they have been since I took an interest in the place- they want the Federal Govt to help out when times are bad, but can't decide if this creates a dependency on the State, or the dependency is due to chronic economic failure. They want the US to be a strong, international power, but aren't united on where and how to be this. On social policy, I think most Americans are liberal, that is, they believe individuals should make the decisions that affect their lives, and not be shaped by the demands of 'Christian' Fundamentalists. And so on.
So Biden represents what most Americans believe in, and Trump what they reject. Biden might not come across as the dynamic, incisive type of President Obama was, but in functional terms, he has achieved more in three years than Trump ever did or can; and for all the explosive claims of Fox News, and the nut jobs in Congress determined to prove Biden is corrupt, the simple fact is that Trump has and has had the closest relations to organized crime and convicted criminals than any other President, but they don't want to talk about that.
And it may be that he joins his buddies as a convicted felon himself. And American knows it is better than this, which is why Trump will never be President again.
Far from being part of a partisan witchhunt against Trump, the evidence suggests that the DoJ and FBI have been extremely reluctant to pursue investigations against him for fear of being seen as partisan. A Washington Post investigation reveals that investigation of the role of Trump and his associates in January 6 was delayed for over a year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...ore-than-year/
Even on the documents case, the indictment took almost 18 months after they first learned that Trump had likely retained classified material.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...fbi-jail-biden
As a result, we now have a situation in which legal proceedings are unlikely to be completed before the next election, while the ability to gather evidence on January 6 may have been hampered by the delay. Perhaps the cautious approach may influence the perceptions of independents and some of the saner Republicans, but it's clearly not going to make any difference to most Republicans.
And a man who claims he can't get a fair trial in New York or Washington has not, as far as I know, argued he can't be tried in Florida-- in district that voted for him, from who the jury will be selected, under a judge he appointed. Will they convict on the evidence?
Is he going down? I can't imagine a 'real man' like Trump would ever go down on a woman, but I can see the reason why he will do the time when he has so clearly done the crime.
The most disturbing aspect of this is the contempt that Trump supporters have shown for the Rule of Law, which is fundamental to a free society. Mike Pence, boringly normal in this regard, has supported the law over Trump, while others, the usual suspects, not just De Santis but for heaven's sake, a so-called Lawyer, have defended Trump, as if they were so blinded by their loyalty to this Grade A American Crook, they can't see the cliff edge toward which they are walking.
Yes, Trump has been treated differently from other Americans -he should have been arrested on January 6th 2021, though I guess prosecutors always want a tight case to present in Court. But the Fake Electors? Surely they could have been arrested as soon as they made themselves known, just as Trump's supporters know his handling of Govt documents was completely different from the way they were handled by Clinton, Biden and Pence. The desperation being shown is all the more reckless when it is the Rule of Law, and indeed, portentous as it sounds, the foundations of the Republic that are at stake.
Trump cares only for himself, his supporters know that. Trump cannot win an election, his supporters know that. It seems to me that this is worse than Watergate, but it remains a critical test, and if it fails, why then, surely the US will have failed as a state, and it is only a matter of time before people trafficking, child killing filth like Greg Abbott declare independence, or some form of State Autonomy?
Brexit has brought the UK to the edge of collapse, but the collapse has not happened, largely because the Scottish Nationalists are imploding, and on a few policies the UK has reversed course; but the UK has been weakened as a state, politically and economically. I think the US is at a similar crossroads, but the stakes are higher.
One certain thing: the relentless Trump Everywhere All at Once, is sucking the oxygen out of politics. The homeless remain on the streets; the poor make their daily trek to the food bank; the rivers and reservoirs dry up with no coherent plan to manage resources when so many Republicans think the environmental threats they can see every day are just accidents, or once in a lifetime events and normality will be resumed next week, or next month.
The only positive is that a generation of men is in the political departure lounge -Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, if only Joe Biden- is it really too late for the Democrats to make a bold step and choose another?
Is there a new generation genuinely determined to heal America's wounds, or is it a lost cause?
Half the country already thinks Biden is a woke commie lib, when he's actually about as centrist as an American politician can be right now. Anyone to the left of him will likely lose to whatever steaming pile the Republicans nominate, and a lot of people may vote Republican simply because Biden is old.
Even the non-right media has done nothing to paint Biden's administration in a positive light. Any good news on the economy is couched in terms of a looming recession. His age is always mentioned. Polling showing that voters don't want a Biden/Trump rematch is always mentioned. The man literally pulled us back from the brink, got landmark infrastructure legislation and the CHIPS Act passed, and gets zero credit.
This is worse than Watergate because Nixon resigned instead of just claiming that it was a bogus investigation (and he knew his party was not going to back him). Now we have the entire Republican party doubling down on not only not holding Trump accountable for any criminal activity, but of doing everything possible to put him back in the White House so he can destroy our constitutional republic forever.
Fake electors have been indicted in Michigan. Something is coming in Georgia eventually.
I don't think I will ever understand the support a liar and a con-man like Trump has among seasoned politicians and journalists. I can only assume they are as disenchanted by the USA as Trump is, and no longer have any faith in the system that was created in the aftermath of 1776. The problem is that while Trump appears to favour some form of Autocracy or Dictatorship, it is not clear what his Republican supporters want, though the Libertarians funded by the Koch dynasty and similar rich men, want an end to Government in its broadest sense of the word, a radical position which seems be derived from the earliest settlers who believed in self-government.
That said, is it even conceivable that faced with such serious consequences, Trump could do a deal, plead guilty to some of the charges and take a chance on the rest? Or even just throw in the towel on the basis that he will not be sent to prison?
The text of the indictment is here-
trump-indictment.pdf (d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net)
The indictment makes for fascinating reading, though a lot of its content was aired in the hearings in the House that were televised last year. There is a long section on the Vice President that to my mind undermines most of Trump's case, or Defendant 1, Def1 here.
Defenders have argued this case is a test of the First Amendment, that Free Speech is the foundation of Trump's defence, that he had the legal right to tell lies.
I disagree with this, on the basis of what is in the Indictment. It details the number of times Def1 was told there was no fraud, either in general terms, or in the specific States that became the subject of Def1's claims. In some cases, at an evening meeting Def1 would be told categorically that X was not true, but then repeat it the following morning, in a Tweet, or verbally or in some other way. Does the First Amendment enable a President to knowingly tell lies? On one occasion he failed to get the Vice President to use his role in Congress to stop the transition, then stated the following morning the Vice President was considering it -does Free Speech enable Def1 to lie about someone else's intentions?
The key, it seems to me, is not that Free Speech is a right, but that the intention of the lies was to deprive the citizens of the USA their Constitutional right to have their votes counted fairly, and for the outcome to represent their wishes.
But what the Indictment also documents, is that when Def1 did not get the response he wanted, either from State officials or the Vice President, he used the power of the Presidency to threaten them -with legal action in the case of Georgia, more sinister in the case of the Vice President. This is what the Indictment says about the latter-
"97.
Also on January 5, the Defendant met alone with the Vice President. When the Vice President refused to agree to the Defendant's request that he obstruct the certification, the Defendant grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him. Upon learning of this, the Vice-President's Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President's safety and alerted the head of the Vice President's Secret Service detail."
-This is chilling, because in others cases, such as in the case of the election worker in Georgia libelled more than 20 times in that notorious phone call, and in other cases, refusals to adopt Def1's lies led to death threats, forced removals from home, and, as was seen on the next day, January 6, mobs screaming 'Hang Mike Pence!'.
Surely, Free Speech cannot be used or legally justified, if the aim is to coerce others, or threaten, or merely insinuate that a violent act might follow? And violent acts did follow, and the Indictment claims that such acts were a direct consequence of Def1's 'Free Speech' rights.
In another case, officials in the Department of Justice were told they would be fired if they did not implement procedures that were known to be based on lies, that were known to be a violation of the Constitution and the Law. Is it Free Speech to threaten someone's livelihood?
I am no lawyer, but I am assuming there is a boundary line that separates the Free Speech of Def1 which claims 'We won every State by a lot', from the Free Speech that intimidates, threatens, and even threatens individuals with violence. That cannot be right.
A useful interpretation, based on the President's Conduct, rather than his speech. The sections on the Fake Electors in the Indictment goes into a lot of detail but is nevertheless potentially one of the strongest cases against Def1.
Rep. Jamie Raskin Dismantles Trump's 'Comical' New Jan. 6 Claim (yahoo.com)
It because his supporters have been brainwashed into believing anything The MAGA King Donald Trump,and his enablers in US Congress,Senate and on the Propaganda Channel tells them. And are convinced he's the victim and target of a witch hunt of the deep state who is out to get him. He's not going to do that,because thinks he's innocent and didn't do anything wrong,which everyone else knows he did and is going to end up paying the price with his freedom by being convicted and serving time in federal prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
But as the former President's security team are not going to go to prison with him, if convicted and so sentenced, he would have to serve his time in a military prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
As in: Guantanamo...
There is. Trump is not being charged with falsely claiming the election was fraudulent, or with using legal/constitutional means to challenge the outcome. He (and others) are charged with conspiring to overturn the outcome through extra-constitutional means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-work-it-wont
Completely agree,they're not going to prison with Donald Trump,that's where a traitor and domestic terrorist leader like him belongs at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
They don't seem to learned much from 2016, when every negative about Hillary Clinton was amplified, while Trump's outrageous statements were downplayed because he wasn't taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Many people seem to be in denial about what a second Trump term might entail. If he wins again there won't be any Republican 'adults' keeping him line. The key lesson he learnt from last time is the need to install Trump sycophants in every public position. The Republican establishment will be totally cowed into submission.
That has already happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
How does one deal with the argument from Trump's defenders, when Trump was told there was no fraud in the election by the Attorney General, the head of National Intelligence, the head of Cyber Security, every official White House lawyer, and his Vice-President -do their opinions not have any weight at all on Presidential decisions if instead. the President brings in outsiders, 'crackpot lawyers' whose judgments Trump does believe? If this is the case, what is the job of the Attorney General when dealing with the President, or all the others?
If the prosecution ask Trump why he did not believe any of the formal officials in the administration, how will he answer that question?
I come back to something I mentioned some time ago re John Eastman. I have seem him called one of the leading experts on Constitutional Law, but he was working in a law school ranked 147 or something like that. To me, that suggests a minor figure with no claim to be an expert on anything. So how did he find himself re-located from California to the Oval Office of the White House? He clerked for Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice sponsored by Harlan Crow. But I guess hundreds of clerks get their chance to work with a Supreme Court Justice, just as members of the House and Senate have interns. But the connection is there, if not Clarence himself, then perhaps his wife?
Last night on BBC-2's Newsnight, a lawyer defending Trump was never asked if there is any merit in the Indictment's claim that Trump conspired with others to stop the process of certification on January 6, Mark Urban asking other questions -but surely this is one of the key problems Trump has? It is one thing to deny the reality of the election result, but something different to then seek the means to prevent the election process from taking place, described in the US Constitution as Sedition, because while Congress does have the right to question outcomes, it cannot do so on a whim, on an argument that has zero evidence to support its claim.
Like the lies told in the Brexit campaign, the defenders must hope that if they lie, lie and lie again, people will either believe the lies, or just switch off, a win-win for the terrorists.