Trump's legal woes

[James R]

I can't figure it out either. according to this thread there's one bunch of people who are shining white saints and there's another group who are fiendish evil devils and those stupid rednecks and deplorables can't tell the difference so they will probably vote for the devil despite what the media and their betters have to say about things. It's kinda like being robbed of an election, how terrible.

I don't know where you got the bit about the shining white saints.

Also, I don't think it's that the redneck deplorables can't tell the difference. It's more that they don't care about the difference.

It always surprises me when people actively work against their own long-term best interests, but it's actually not that uncommon. If one acts in a bubble of disinformation and lies, one is far more likely to make poor choices - even self-destructive ones.

 

[Seattle]

In many cases it's a sign of integrity that one works against their own interests. People often say the poor shouldn't vote for fiscally responsible policies because those policies are trying to give them money.

They may realize that it's better to be fiscally responsible and vote against the party that is always giving someone something.

Your family may farm tobacco but you realize that voting for policies that lead to less smoking is still a good thing to do.

 

[James R]

I'm not sure you're following what this conversation is about, Seattle. Maybe read some of the thread and get yourself up to speed.

 

[parmalee]

Hitler even had his own Jan 6th, called the Beer Hall Putsch. It was a failed coup attempt, and he was later charged for the crime. In Germany, however, the legal system worked a little better than ours, and he was found guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison. He used the trials as a political platform; he never spoke to the case, but instead used his time on the stand to deliver political speeches, a strategy which has worked for both Hitler and Trump.

In "fairness", the Beer Hall Putsch was less violent than January 6th.

To me, it seems that very few are taking the threat of violence all that seriously. I don't understand this. Personally, I don't think that violent rhetoric alone is indicative of much. But when combined with condoning violence, promises and threats of violence, and even various forms of sanctioned violence (Kyle Rittenhouse), you ignore at your peril.

The Project 2025 guy says "we" are in the midst of the second American Revolution, but it shall "remain bloodless, if the Left allows." Then AP prints this crap:

Donald Trump distanced himself Friday from Project 2025, a massive proposed overhaul of the federal government drafted by longtime allies and former officials in his administration, days after the head of the think tank responsible for the program suggested there would be a second American Revolution.

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump posted on his social media website. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Trump disavows Project 2025 transition plan after a key official calls for a new American Revolution

Former President Donald Trump is seeking to distance himself from a plan for a massive overhaul of the federal government drafted by some of his former administration officials.

apnews.com

(emphasis mine)

Right. And Trump never met E Jean Carroll, and he didn't know Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump didn't "distance" himself from shit. He simply spewed a bunch of nonsense, as usual, and the proof is right there: "I have no idea who is behind it."

 

[Seattle]

I'm not sure you're following what this conversation is about, Seattle. Maybe read some of the thread and get yourself up to speed.

Maybe just take my comment for what it is.

 

[billvon]

To me, it seems that very few are taking the threat of violence all that seriously.

I'm taking it seriously. But what am I going to do? Point out that all Trump's promises are lies? Done that. Contribute to organizations (like VoteVets) that counteract his propaganda? Did that. What else? Get lots of guns?

 

[billvon]

The Project 2025 guy says "we" are in the midst of the second American Revolution, but it shall "remain bloodless, if the Left allows."

MAGA gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson apparently disagrees; during a diatribe (in a CHURCH at that) he said the following:

“Some folks need killin. It’s time for somebody to say it. It’s not a matter of vengeance. It’s not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It’s a matter of necessity!” The people who needed killing, according to him, included “people who have evil intent”, “wicked people” people “torturing and murdering and raping” and socialists. One wonders if this therefore applies to Trump, an ajudicated rapist.

So much for the Sixth Commandment. Maybe there's an exception for MAGA.

 

[parmalee]

I'm taking it seriously. But what am I going to do? Point out that all Trump's promises are lies? Done that. Contribute to organizations (like VoteVets) that counteract his propaganda? Did that. What else? Get lots of guns?

It's more that I would think that an emphasis upon the violence Trump and the GOP promise would take a more prominent role in Democratic messaging. American politics have long been characterized by lurid attack ads on one's opponents--oftentimes, with a whole lotta hyperbole thrown in for good measure. With Trump and crew, hyperbole isn't even necessary.

That said, Trump supporters being ill-informed isn't so much the issue here, at least with respect to violence: They know Trump is a serial rapist; they just don't care. They know their party favors violent "solutions" with respect to immigrants, "socialists", et al; that's partly why they support them.

In light of that, well, I don't know. A lot of people I know with kids have said that having kids has sort of compelled them to at least try to be more optimistic. I understand that, of course, but how exactly do you "try" to be more optimistic?

 

[Sarkus]

Just in: Judge Aileen Cannon - the seemingly unashamedly biased Trump-appointee who has been overseeing and facilitating the delays to the Mar-a-Lago / Classified Documents case in Florida - has just dismissed the case entirely on the basis that the Special Prosecutor (SP) has not been legally appointed.

You may be aware that in the 6-3 immunity ruling recently given, Judge Thomas gave his own additional opinion, not postively supported by the others (i.e. noone actually commented on it, positively or negatively), that stated that in his view the Special Prosecutor Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. Noone had asked for this issue to be addressed. Noone had raised it. No arguments were heard regarding it. It was simply Thomas' way of telling Aileen Cannon that she should dismiss that case on those grounds, and that should the issue ever get to the Supreme Court then her ruling would have his support. It was a completely unwarranted comment in the immunity ruling by Thomas, with no bearing on the matter for which they were ruling, and simply more evidence of his unethical and biased behaviour. But that is an aside.

Now, as to what the current law around such appointments may be, I fully expect that should the case get to the Supreme Court that it will be determined 6-3 that his appointment is unlawful, and that they will, as with the recent immunity case, pre-determine the result they want and simply reverse-engineer their arguments to fit.

More immediately will be how Jack Smith, the SP in question, responds to the dismissing of the case. I imagine he will almost immediately file an appeal, and also now seek to get Aileen Cannon removed from the case, should it proceed.

 

[Tiassa]

Update: U.S. v. Trump (No. 23-3228)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has returned United States v. Trump (23-3228), in re the Wednesday Pusch, to Judge Tanya Chutkin.