For many legal analysts, President Donald Trump remains a type of criminal Midas figure: everything he says or does turns instantly into a crime. Over the last few years, the media has published a long line of unfounded criminal theories by experts claiming that a tweet or a meeting or a statement established a clear prosecutable case. It is a popular and profitable take with the media which has been feeding an insatiable appetite for such reassuring views. Law has become a recreation and legal analysts have become part of the legal entertainment.
This pattern is continuing to the very end of the Trump Administration. Within minutes of the leaking of a call between Trump and Georgia election officials, the same experts were declaring yet another clear crime. The loudest was Andrew Weissmann whose desire to find a crime to use against Trump appears to move from an obsession to a delusion.
I do not fault those who read the statement in an incriminating fashion. It can be read in an incriminating fashion. However, there is clearly a non-incriminating meaning that also can be taken from the transcript. That is not reasonable basis for a criminal allegation. There may be evidence that supports a criminal allegation related to this call but the transcript does not come close to a prosecutable case.
Since his departure as the top deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann (now a MSNBC analyst and a NYU law professor) seems intent on proving his critics correct about his profound bias against President Donald Trump and his reckless approach to prosecutorial standards. He recently called for prosecutors to use grand juries to pursue Trump and others in an unrelenting campaign based on unfounded legal theories. His recent book has been denounced by other prosecutors as unprofessional and inappropriate. Weissmann previously called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation and, after the pardon of Roger Stone, called for Stone in a grand jury. Now, he is insisting that the call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is clearly a criminal act. While I admittedly come to these questions from the counter perspective of a criminal defense attorney, the claim is legally absurd.
The Saturday call is now well-known, though few have actually read the full transcript. Yesterday, Raffensperger acknowledged that he made the decision to release the tape of a settlement discussion two days before the critical Georgia election. As a matter of legal practice, the taping (let alone the release) of settlement discussions is considered highly inappropriate. In some states, it would constitute a crime to engage in such nonconsensual taping. (Georgia is a one party consent state).
When the tape was released, many of us immediately criticized the statement of the President that “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.” However, experts immediately declared yet another clear criminal act and some members even called for a type of twilight impeachment in the last couple weeks of the Trump Administration. Weissmann declared immediately that the tape showed “criminal intent” as well as “proof of his motive and his pattern of similar activity.”
The problem is that Weissmann again left the criminal code and controlling case law behind in his blind pursuit of Trump. He was not alone. There is no established crime in this transcript under federal law.
As with the obstruction allegations investigated by Robert Mueller and the Ukrainian call that was the basis for the impeachment, this comes down to a question of intent. While most experts are notably vague on the specific criminal provision, one possibility would be election fraud under 52 U.S. 20511, which covering any person who “knowingly and willfully intimidated, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce” any person exercising the right to vote. This was not a direct intimidation of a voter but it could be claimed to be interfering with that right.
However, such an interpretation comes to a full stop at intent. This was a settlement discussion over election challenges with a variety of lawyers present, not some backroom at the Bada Bing club. The entire stated purpose of the challenges was to count what the Trump campaign alleged were uncounted votes that surpassed the 11,780 deficit. Trump repeatedly asserted that he won the election and put forward different theories of how many more votes were destroyed or not counted. He continued to return to the fact that they only need to confirm 11,780 of those hundreds of thousands of allegedly uncounted ballots.
The Georgia lawyers on the call did a good job in rebutting Trump’s theories and showing that there are not hundreds of thousands of uncounted or miscounted ballots. Yet, in any criminal case, Trump would simply argue that he was restating the point of the pending cases in a settlement negotiation: that the election was not fair and that he actually won. That is a view shared by roughly 40 percent of the public. A prosecutor would have to show that Trump clearly knew that his theories were bogus and that he did not believe there were sufficient ballots to reach that number. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view a case built on that line as not just challengeable but laughable.
Even if the prosecutors could find a basis for establishing intent, they would still be pushing fraud statutes beyond an intelligible limits without more direct evidence of intent. Ironically, this is the very issue that marred Weissmann’s career and the reason many of us viewed his selection by Mueller to be an egregious error. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led a unanimous Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005. He proceeded to make the same exaggerated claims with Mueller (which were apparently rejected by the staff) and has continued to do so as a MSNBC analyst. He seems impervious to conflicting case law. Even a unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan does not appear to narrow his reading of such provisions. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the convictions in the “Bridgegate” case involving the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who refused to endorse then-Gov. Chris Christie. The Court observed:
“That requirement, this Court has made clear, prevents these statutes from criminalizing all acts of dishonesty by state and local officials. Some decades ago, courts of appeals often construed the federal fraud laws to “proscribe[] schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government.” McNally, 483 U. S., at 355. This Court declined to go along. The fraud statutes, we held in McNally, were “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Id., at 360. They did not authorize federal prosecutors to “set[] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials.” Ibid.”
Weissmann’s fraud prosecution would be based on a statement that could be easily defended as part of a settlement discussion over the findings of uncounted votes. There was no clear threat or benefit discussed. They were discussing what Trump was seeking in these challenges and his belief that fraudulent, and possible criminal, conduct marred the results. One can reject those claims (as I have) without converting the matter into a faux criminal case.
Yet, readers are not satisfied with just a condemnation of Trump. They want a prosecution. To that end, another former prosecutor, Daniel Goldman, stepped forward to offer his own assurances of a criminal case to be made against Trump. (House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff previously hired Goldman, who previously called Trump a “shameful” person who “doesn’t care about the country” and who “ ‘looks bad’ because he committed a crime.”). Goldman focused on the line “It’s gonna be costly to you.” Goldman declared “I’ve charged extortion in mob cases with similar language.” In reality, the line was “it’s going to be very costly in many ways” which is very different than “it will be costly to you.” The extortion theory is the same basic theory that was raised in the impeachment hearing. I testified at that hearing and noted that this type of unhinged interpretation has been previously rejected by the Supreme Court. The House ultimately declined to adopt any extortion article of impeachment.
I would be interested to see the cases that Goldman charged solely on this type of line. The statement in a settlement that further litigation is going to be “costly” is hardly unprecedented. Moreover, Trump can point what he said after that line: “I think you have to say that you’re going to reexamine it, and you can reexamine it, but reexamine it with people that want to find answers, not people that don’t want to find answers.” Yet, like Weissmann, Goldman wants the public to believe that this would not just be a good case for prosecution but not unlike cases that he personally prosecuted. If he did bring a case on that type of evidence, it is hard to believe it would withstand a cursory pretrial challenge.
Of course, none of this matters. That is just law. This is legal entertainment. In the echo chambers of our current news platforms, such views are rarely challenged. Viewers hear what they hoped to hear from experts who are eager to supply endless theories of criminality. Of course, the same endless flexibility in the criminal code does not extend to figures like Hunter or Joe Biden. Trump just has that criminal Midas touch.
You skipped over some evidence of President Meatball’s INTENT in that 62-minute embarrassing disaster of another “perfect phone call.” 🙄
I find it troubling that people can support Trump while he says actually very violent things like this toward a CIVIL SERVANT and her DAUGHTER:
(from Talking Points Memo but you can listen to his garbage yourself, you should if you haven’t):
“Trump’s obsession with Freeman is evident: He referenced her, by name, a dozen times at three separate points during his hour-long call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Trump referred to Freeman as “a professional vote scammer and hustler” and later as “a known political operative, balloteer.”
Trump also singled out Freeman’s “lovely daughter.”
“A very lovely young lady, I’m sure,” the President said, before noting that he was willing to “take on” Freeman.”
It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out.
Paint Chips, you are busted.
Paint Chips is the rabid hater on this blog, the only one that uses countless suck puppets inciting violence against Republicans, and the only one who quotes from TPM, a far left whacked out outlet run by a washed out PhD historian who embraces violence against Trump supporters: John Marshall
The Criminal Midas(es)
The “media” have profitized (neologism intended) the election and the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
Before the election of President Trump, the New Times, CNN, MSNBC and almost all of the so-called “main stream media” (MSM), monopolistic corporate news businesses, were barely making a profit, particularly MSNBC was losing huge sums.
Then the New York Times declared itself “the resistance” and CNN and MSNBC became C.I.A. stenographers, which resulted in the businesses become gigantically profitable.
Lawyers, tenured professors, political ideologues, media pop stars and “celebrities” of every hue and form could and did receive “air time.”
Jeff Zuckerberg and Mark Zuckerberg among numerous other media demigods feed the pubic, particularly the Electoral College vote losers and the politically “knowledgeable and anonymously informed,” received wisdom that “The Donald” had stolen from them the pre-ordained and the god (their god) given right to a female president and a “Democrats” victory.
What followed and what continues to follow is no more, no less than bread and circuses.
This was aided by and augmented with the “Russians did it, the Chinese it,” in other words, “the other.”
The wars of Aggression, the war crimes, the National debt, the National deficit(s) and the deterioration of the nation’s physical infrastructure and the nation’s emotional, psychological and medical health mean nothing compared to American Exceptionalism,
The Earth’s Last Best Hope,
The Indispensable Nation, and
The One Indispensable Nation.
USA,USA, USA, number 1!
The so-called “criminal Midas,” or Midas Criminals, which is it?
Why am I wrong?
dennis hanna
How is it that Raphael got away with this, receives glowing support from Democrats / MSM, while his wife and children are ignored?
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/12/23/i-cant-believe-he-would-run-me-over-warnocks-wife-says-georgia-democrat-senate-candidate-crossed-the-line-in-newly-released-police-bodycam-video-n1227184
‘I Can’t Believe He Would Run Me Over!’ Warnock’s Wife Says GA Dem Senate Candidate ‘Crossed the Line’ In Newly Released Police Vid
Rev. Raphael Warnock, Democrat Senate candidate in Georgia runoff, addresses police in bodycam footage during domestic dispute with his now ex-wife. Image from video.
Last March, Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Rev. Raphael Warnock and his wife were going through a divorce when one morning, police were called to the house to investigate a domestic abuse complaint. Warnock’s wife, Ouleye Ndoye, says that Warnock ran over her foot with the car. Warnock said he didn’t think he did.
Later examination showed no obvious injury to his wife’s foot, but police bodycam footage shows his tearful wife claiming that Warnock is a “great actor” and “he is phenomenal at putting on a very good show.
“I’ve tried to keep the way he acts under wraps for a long time, and today he crossed the line,” said Ndoye.
In March, the then-wife of Ga. Senate candidate @ReverendWarnock called police w/ a claim of domestic violence. She told them, as per this video, “he’s a great actor” [via Fox News] pic.twitter.com/swF0DqXlC3
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 23, 2020
Fox News:
Warnock tells the officer they had an argument that morning over divorce papers while their two kids were present. He says that his wife prevented him from closing the car door by standing in front it.
“I don’t want to get into a shoving match with her. So I go back around, get back in the car, and I slowly start to move, like I’m gonna move forward. Then she claims I ran over her foot,” Warnock tells the officer.
Ndoye wanted Warnock to sign some papers so she could get a passport and take her children to West Africa to visit relatives.
“He’s like, ‘Ouleye, close the door. I’m leaving,’” his wife tells the officer while crying. “And I was like, ‘just hear me out. If your mom died, and I had the kids. Wouldn’t you want me to let them go with you to the funeral? And he just starts backing the car up. He wasn’t going fast, I’m not bleeding. But I just can’t believe he’d run me over.”
Asked whether she thought it was intentional, she says, “Obviously. I was standing here. The door was open and I’m leaning into the car. How can you drive the car when I’m leaning into it?”
The incident occurred last March. Why is it only now we’re seeing the bodycam footage?
Warnock was running for senator at the time — something his wife alludes to. She said that “all he cares about is his reputation.” It was obvious that it was all the media cared about too. If it had been a Republican candidate, the bodycam footage would have been released the next day and the video edited to show only the wife’s side of the dispute. Women’s groups would have demanded the GOP candidate withdraw and criticism would have been directed at police for not arresting the Republican and throwing him in jail.
It’s astounding that there wasn’t one media outlet that sought the footage prior to this.
Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler plans on making full use of the footage.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quotes Loeffler’s statement, “Domestic abuse is a very serious issue, and this new body cam footage is certainly difficult to watch,” Loeffler said. “Georgians deserve answers to these very serious allegations, and his ex-wife’s voice deserves to be heard.”
Multiply that statement by 10 times and you’d get an idea of the reaction if Warnock had been a Republican.
Divorce with under age children: the only thing worse is a vehicle accident with serious bodily injury.
Who is going to be Biden’s AG? If socialists win in Georgia it’s Sally Yates. No more Durham, no more Hunter, nothing to see anywhere. While Dems scream over a phone call, Beto Ossoff, silver spoon in mouth, from daddy, collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from Alphabet and Big Tech. Worry about the phone call, but look the other way when Zuckerburg gives Biden 400 million for his campaign and Bloomberg throws in another 100 million in chump change.
asoff is a hireling. big tech billionaires, the enemy
look past the spear to who holds it
you gotta dodge the agent’s attack to survive, but to stop the next thrust, get to the principle
sal sar
“There may be evidence that supports a criminal allegation related to this call but the transcript does not come close to a prosecutable case.”
************************
Legal Primer:
Peddling influence and policy action through your son to get half of the profits from an international rival’s investment: Criminal
Trying to get a worthless Georgia bureaucrat to get off his duff and do his job: Not Criminal
Raffensperger’s been doing his job. You dislike that he’s been doing his job.
He is a truly despicable human. For personal reasons, he would throw the entire nation under the bus.
Rottenburger is perpetrating a cover-up.
It was so vast and there was so much cover-up when the Deep Deep State took out JFK, it persists to this day.
Wow. This is bad even for JT. First, it was clearly not a settlement negotiation, for there is no active suit and they did not talk about a suit or try to negotiate. Second, Trump was clearly asking the SoS to change the vote totals of an election that happened two months ago. The SoS was clear that everything Trump was saying was wrong. And Trump did bring up criminal liability for the SoS, which was absolutely intimidation.
For anyone else other then Trump, calling an election official and say their could be criminal prosecution for not rigging an election, would absolutely be illegal.
Also the notion that Trump did not have intent because he is so broken with reality is probably the most truthful thing in this.
“it was clearly not a settlement negotiation, for there is no active suit and they did not talk about a suit or try to negotiate”
A) Molly, parties settle disputes (settlement negotiation) every day without a lawsuit being filed.
B) As you already wrote, there was no “suit” to discuss.
Do you know the definition of “context”, Molly?
Apparently not.
Well then there’s that!
Geez!
Smallie-G is not in court, she’s writing an incoherent screenplay for a “B” movie or, perhaps, summer stock in Haiti.
I stand corrected. There was an active suit. However, the phone call was clearly not a settlement talk because a) they did not discuss settling the suit and b) not all parties of the suit were on the line, and neither were their lawyers. I believe it is sanctionable for one the lawer for one side to talk the the other side without their lawyer present.
You believe wrong. The parties can ALWAYS talk without their lawyers present.
Turley claims: “Yet, in any criminal case, Trump would simply argue that he was restating the point of the pending cases in a settlement negotiation: that the election was not fair and that he actually won. That is a view shared by roughly 40 percent of the public. A prosecutor would have to show that Trump clearly knew that his theories were bogus and that he did not believe there were sufficient ballots to reach that number. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view a case built on that line as not just challengeable but laughable.”
The “view” of 40% of Trump supporters–that the election was not fair and that Trump won, even by a landslide–comes from their stupidity and blind allegiance to a narcissistic liar, not from truth or provable fact. In fact, these “beliefs” come despite the truth and despite the fact that the lies have been repeatedly refuted. The dumbass deplorables will believe any lie he tells, and when even Republican election officials and governors refute the lies, the disciples still believe. One of Turley’s jobs is to help keep the faith strong–Turley is a law professor, and he says Trumpy Bear did nothing wrong, and that all of those who claim Trump committed crimes are wrong. Not only that, they are ignoring the “crimes” of Hunter Biden.
Turley attempts to make the case that it cannot be proven that Trump knows he is lying, and that his claims about fraud are bogus. Well, Turley, why have 61 courts, including the SCOTUS, rejected his lawsuits? Why, if they aren’t bogus? And, please explain how you can come up with the idea that Trump doesn’t know his claims are bogus when he keeps getting confronted with the truth by Secretaries of State, Governors and other election officials, most of whom are Republicans, who explain to him that the things he is saying are lies? Despite the call to Raffensberger over the weekend, yesterday Trump again lied to the crowd of deplorables in Georgia–kept repeating the lies. That’s what a narcissist does. What about you, Turley?
You want to know what’s “laughable”? You are, Turley. Someone selling his credibility and credentials to support the worst-ever person who cheated his way into our White House. Someone who was impeached by the House of Representatives and who had 48 US Senators vote to remove him from office over trying to leverage aid to an ally in exchange for ginning up a fake scandal, which Turley keeps trying to breathe life into, as today’s post proves. Someone who sells himself as an expert in the law, but who keeps lying that Trump was “exonerated” by the Mueller Report, when he knows damn good and well that Trump obstructed justice by refusing to be deposed, by refusing to produce documents, by procuring the absence of key witnesses. When he knows damn good and well that Dan Coats was fired for telling the truth that Russia helped Trump cheat. When he knows damn good and well that Chris Krebs was fired by telling the truth that there was no widespread election fraud. When he knows damn good and well that Barr told Trump that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. Yet, Turley claims it cannot be proven that Trump knows his claims of fraud are baseless. What else do you need, Turley–a tattoo on Trump’s hand that says “no election fraud–you lost–fair and square–get your fat ass out of the White House where you don’t belong”?
The Left’s Pathological hatred of Trump exceeds all bounds of reason. He was investigated on bogus FISA warrants for 3 years that proved nothing. He was impeached on baseless grounds for a phone call made pursuant to his presidency that proved nothing. The lawsuits were denied on procedural grounds not the merits. The evidence of election fraud is significant in the six states where the democrats controlled the process. and the congressional hearing challenging electors, no doubt, will be telling.
Your animus blows your case.
The “view” of 40% of Trump supporters–that the election was not fair and that Trump won, even by a landslide–comes from their stupidity and blind allegiance to a narcissistic liar, not from truth or provable fact.
No, it comes from the fact that at 3 in the morning on election night the vote totals combined with the reported number of uncounted votes indicated that he was going to win, The betting markets at 3 am had Trump as a a heavy favorite (2.8 to 1).
Then a whole lot of crazy stuff happened, and the relevant state governments never made any effort to address the concerns.
The relevant state governments did make an effort to address the concerns. You just don’t want to listen or accept it.
Trying to prove intent may not be as difficult as Turley claims. Trump has a clear history of abusing his power to get what he wants. Most of the time it involves extortion. From threatening states and governors by withholding federal funds to heads of state such as the Ukrainian president when he held up crucial military aid to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden.
Then there’s the multiple claims of rigged elections and fraud which have never produced credible evidence during his campaign against Hillary Clinton to today’s elections. His intent is pretty clear. He WANTS to be declared the winner. 18 calls to the Georgia SOT. Multiple lawsuits seeking to overturn or eliminate votes. Declaring that Mike pence can overturn electoral votes.
Trump’s insistence that he won every state. Only two possible rationales can explain Trump’s claims. He’s deliberately trying to steal the election or he’s succumbed to believing his own pathological lying. I put my money on the latter. He’s lied so much that he may genuinely believe his own alternative reality. That in itself is enough to invoke the 25th amendment. Trump is no longer capable of discerning reality from fiction.
Trying to prove intent may not be as difficult as Turley claims. Trump has a clear history of abusing his power to get what he wants.
No. You’re deranged.
You seem to do nothing but insult people. Stop trolling.
As Turley fondly points out, 40% of the public (AKA Trump supporters) believe Trump won the election despite Trump soundly losing 60 judicial reviews issued by federal judges & the Supreme Court, losing numerous recounts, having Biden’s victories in Georgia & Arizona certified by Republican Governors & Secretaries of State, Homeland Security cybersecurity chiefs verifying that the 2020 election was the most secure election in US history, & confirmation from Bill Barr that the Justice Department didn’t find any evidence to overturn election results.
Turley then says it’s laughable that Trump was cognizant that losing 60 judicial reviews, numerous recounts & the Electoral College certifying Biden’s victory somehow proved Trump didn’t win in a landslide & he didn’t win Georgia by 400,000 votes.
Today, a conservative National Review columnist said “Trump’s media cheerleaders, who like to call themselves constitutionalists and patriots, are no such thing. They are, for the most part, profiteers who will justify anything if it helps them to hold on to one point of audience share as they peddle their various blends of snake oil.” What’s that saying about if the shoe fits, JT?
I’ve heard voting is light in Georgia today. That does not bode well for Republicans, and if Democrats win both seats, they will claim it as a mandate.
It won’t be a mandate. It means millions of Georgians no longer believe in the system and want out. What “out” means will probably become terrifyingly clear if Democrats start adding new states, new justices, new speech codes, and new prosecutions to their already-bloated agenda. It was bad enough when they were defying the law with riots and sanctuary cities, but now they are the law?
History is not over. I fear she is just clearing her throat.
ah well maybe this is a good thing if people have given up smoking HOPIUM
the pain of withdrawal will set in and then who knows what comes
chaos, and opportunity, if we are lucky
Saloth Sar
Just started reading Rise and Decline. Enjoying it, Sal. Thanks
I’ve heard voting is light in Georgia today. That does not bode well for Republicans
Yes, it does.
seems to me the vaunted “press” ie the mass media inclusive of social media as regulated by its internal censorship routines, both of which are privately owned and operated via global corporations, by and large– but this ‘press” is essentially the same functional equivalent as the “church” was in the older regimes
and so by banning ie “separating” church and state, and in the very same amendment, elevating the press to the now-empty space left behind by secularism, via “freedom of the press,” by which these private global corporate mass and social media companies have various privileges we regular folks do not have, and a social function which is even more impressive than what normally is expected out of “education”– well, quite simply, we have elevated in the place of the old master “The Church” a new lot of masters, “The Press” ie those who own them.
Billionaires, in a word. Our new Pope is he who controls the most media assets, in short
well, perhaps there is no Pope but let’s get a look at some of our new Cardinals
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/?sh=481d9550660a
Saloth Sar
and so we can see that just as arguing with a member of a cult is a waste of energy, so is arguing with someone who takes their Truths like digital manna and gospel from the orifice of CNN talking heads, our modern day priests
one could easier make a Catholic out of a Muslim than deprogram the faithful of the current age
and so if we understand moments in history like the slaying of the Saxon Chiefs at the Massacre of Verden, then we understand now
Saloth Sar
In an honest world, Weismann would have been disbarred a long time ago, but the world is not honest and the legal profession in this country is dominated by Democrats with blinders on. Unfortunately, the American political profession is dominated by lawyers, most of whom are Democrats and whose number one goal is advancing the party (which has been crooked ever since Andrew Jackson, a crooked lawyer, established it.) This country and the world is in a mess, but there is good news. No less a person than Sir Isaac Newton, who was as much a theologian as he was a scientist, calculated Bible prophecies and determined that Jesus Christ would return around the year 2060.
The mass media are lackeys of the billionaires who literally own them. They can’t be trusted for any socalled “opinions” let alone news
You get more out of state run media in foreign countries than you do the vaunted US free press and their excuse for existence the overhyped First Amendment
I’m bored with these Turley stories too but an old fashioned liberal like Turley is going to keep on pumping them out, hoping one day the press will fulfil his antiquated expectation that they serve the public. They do not. They serve those who sign their paychecks and nobody else.
Here’s another problem. More BS opinions and underqualified “experts” will not improve the failure of the educational system and overall culture to produce thinking citizens who can cooperate sufficiently to realize a just and ordered society. we are so far from that goal that the mere increase in raw data, information, content, etc. is just like drinking from a firehose anyways
Is the situation hopeless? Under current arrangements, pretty much yes.
Under dramatically new conditions, not imposed by billionaire plutocrats, but created by a rebellion of the people against global bureaucracy, well, yes, there would be hope.
Saloth sar
The rebellion that America launched against the British Crown was led by its educated class….merchants, traders, and craftspeople…it wasn’t the rantings of the uneducated, oft-drunken masses. That would have been a total disaster, only to be followed by rigid authoritarianism to restore order. The United States was a successful post-revolutionary achievement because the patriots were good institution builders, persons who had read the classics, read the European political philosophers, and knew what types of governance “glue” were essential to hold a people together.
I don’t see any interest in institution-building among those least happy with the US – I see just the opposite — they only know how to tear down institutions, trust and cooperative problem-solving. These are the types of proto-revolutionaries to be kept in their places.
Their motto should be “Credo quia absurdum”
Well here we are again. Trump acting childish and the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd screaming about breaking the law. I listened and read the transcript and it is bad. However, criminal? Why would anyone bother? He is gone and Biden is President. I wonder how many of these same people are going to be out of work when their one trick pony is put down.
No, Trump is not gone and Biden is not president yet. The inauguration is not until January 20. By the way, I was at my local sporting goods store yesterday and their gun racks were almost empty.,
ammo dried up months ago
Quiet man, the thing is even if he’s leaving office in a few days. He’s still liable to be charged and prosecuted, especially under state law which Trump did violate. He can be charged. He would no longer have the privilege of the office of the presidency.
He can still be convicted.
“Why would anyone bother?” Because he still has to be held accountable. Just letting it go will only validate his view that he can get away with anything. That is in itself antithetical to Republican values of law and order.
Get away with anything? He lost the election and is not going to get it back. What did he gain? Once January 20 is over and government changes hands, nobody will have the stomach for this just like nobody had the stomach to push to charge Hillary Clinton. There is no win. It will only inflame Republican passions. What he did is childish and tawdry, criminal? Not so much.
On 21 January 2021, every ardent Trump supporter and every member of the TDS crowd will wake up and realize that all of the meaning and purpose in his, her or its life is gone.
I’m looking forward to it!
Ah, Turley, coming to Trump’s defense. Note he focused mostly on the federal aspect instead of Georgia state law which is far more problematic for Trump.
Clearly trump WANTED the Georgia Secretary of State to manipulate “recalculate” a few votes so trump would be the winner. Unfortunately for Trump the truth is a hard thing to ignore, especially when he’s the only one delving in debunked conspiracy theories and using them as his “evidence”. The very same “evidence” every court looked at and promptly threw it out.
Notice his Turley doesn’t say Trump’s conspiracy theories. He only says theories. It’s a classic pampering for Trump’s clear lying. Just call him for what he is, a pathological liar.
Weissman is consumed with hatred, which has destroyed what little intelligence and judgment he ever had. He is not alone. What is sad, however, is all those Democrats who are decent people (and there are millions) remaining silent in the face of such madness.
Weissman should have been disbarred for his Enron shenanigans, as well as for obstruction of justice when he wiped clean three phones before giving them to Horowitz, like the rest of the Mueller team.
As far as I know Professor Hunter Biden did not attempt to over throw an election! He did not call election officials and threaten them if they didn’t find the votes he wanted. Is there anything that Trump does that bothers you?
Nothing tRump has done seems to bother JT -once in a while a bit of “looks bad but not illegal” the call was a solicitation for election fraud – guess JT thinks nothing is wrong with asking someone to change vote totals – JT seems to ignore the many times the GA results have been scrubbed to make sure the vote totals were accurate – – JT also ignores the massive election fraud committed by the Republicans from throwing people off the voter rolls for the crime of wanting to vote while black as well as closing poling stations in minority areas to make long lines – but in the white areas – easy to vote – – just keep in mind that JT is careful to hide his white sheets
Ah yes, the old “Trump was too incompetent to commit this particular crime” defense.
Actually it is can the prosecution overcome the mountain of rules defense. Just because you want it to be a crime, does it make it a crime. This is a last minute hit job for the Georgia election.
Once the Republican efforts in Georgia fail, as they are bound to do, and then once the fake “election contest” efforts fail, as they are bound to do, then perhaps people will grimly wrap their heads around the reality that we realized before Trump burst on the scene with his late-season energy.
The reality is, the elections are KAYFABE. Fake, in other words. They contain no possible outcomes which the billionaires, the true rulers of America, will tolerate
Only when a sufficient amount of people know the enemy and are willing to act against them, will a sufficient revision to our circumstances be possible
another year of public health dictatorship, may very well bring that circumstance into being. I doubt we are there yet. But abide, it may yet come. Then chaos, and opportunity.
Saloth Sar
Quiet man, a crime was indeed committed under Georgia state law.
Svelaz, you know nothing about Georgia law.
You’re a common ordinary punk.
The black minister who ran over his wife….definite crime
I will tell you what, I bet he does not get charged and if he does he will win. How about after March 1 he is not charged you publicly acknowledge yu were wrong? if he is charged, I will publicly acknowledge I was wrong?
FWIW:
“A district attorney in Georgia is considering her own probe into Donald Trump’s call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as two House Democrats are pushing for FBI Director Christopher Wray to do the same. ‘Anyone who commits a felony violation of Georgia law in my jurisdiction will be held accountable,’ Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said in a statement Monday. Once the investigation is complete, this matter, like all matters, will be handled by our office based on the facts and the law,’ she continued, claiming she found the hour-long call to be ‘disturbing.’ … Georgia State Election Board member David Worley sent an email over the weekend demanding the state open a probe into Trump’s hour-long call with Raffensperger. The sole Democrat on the five-person panel, David Worley, wrote in an email to Raffensperger – who, as Georgia’s secretary of State, serves as the State Election Board chairman – claiming an investigation is required. … ‘Once we have received your investigative report, it will be the board’s duty to determine whether probable cause exists to refer this matter.’ …”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9110967/Georgia-Democrat-wants-probe-president-demanding-Brad-Raffensperger-11-780-votes.html
Ah yes, the don’t confuse with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind argument.