Below is my column in the Daily Beast on the second federal indictment of former president Donald Trump. I remain deeply concerned over the implications of free speech from this prosecution. Indeed, the general dismissal of these concerns by legal experts shows how our current rage politics can blind us to dangers even to our own fundamental rights.
Here is the column:
In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” In the second federal indictment against former President Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith seems to follow that advice in bringing a prosecution that pursues the president at any cost, even the First Amendment.
While the Wilde quote is well known, few ever include the second line: “Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful.”
Smith resolved this struggle by yielding and not worrying about the thing “forbidden to itself.” Specifically, he jettisoned First Amendment protections to try to bag the former president for alleged crimes connected to Jan. 6.
While the indictment recognizes that politicians are protected in making false statements in elections, it proceeds to charge Trump for doing precisely that in claiming that the 2020 election was stolen. Smith simply charged that Trump did not really believe it, therefore it is fraud.
The implications of the filing were captured on CNN, where host Kaitlan Collins explained that “the First Amendment does not allow the President of the United States to go and claim there was fraud when he was told there was not fraud…”
That is, of course, entirely wrong. Just because you are told something does not mean that you have to believe it, or that you cannot publicly contradict what you have been told.
However, Collins did accurately describe Smith’s theory: you are allowed to say false things unless you should have believed what the rest of us were saying.
I was one of those saying that Trump was wrong. I criticized his Jan. 6 speech in coverage while he was still giving it. I wrote that he was wrong on the law and that Vice President Mike Pence did the right thing in certifying the election. However, being wrong is not the same as being a felon.
Most of us have no visceral opposition to indicting Trump or any former president. When Smith indicted Trump over documents at Mar-a-Lago, I wrote that I thought the indictment was well-supported and a serious threat to Trump.
That is why most of us were hoping that, if Smith was going to indict Trump over Jan. 6, he would do so only with the undisputed legal precedent and unassailable evidence. He offered neither. The complaint advances a novel legal claim with surprisingly little evidence of intent other than Trump was told by advisers that the allegations of a stolen election (and legal theory on challenging certification) were wrong.
It is important to note that Smith could still offer new evidence. There are a number of unnamed “co-conspirators” and Smith may be working to flip them. They could allege that Trump told them that he lost, but Trump still maintains that he believes (as do millions of Americans) that the election was stolen. Moreover, specific allegations on the submission of false electors include allegations of knowingly false submissions to the courts or Congress. Yet, they would need to establish that Trump knew and facilitated such false filings as opposed to following the advice of legal advisers.
As it stands, this is the criminalization of disinformation. It is consistent with the Biden administration’s effort to censor and punish those who refuse to yield on subjects ranging from climate change to COVID. That is why this is a free-speech killing case. Despite Supreme Court cases affirming that lies are protected speech, it would allow the government to arrest candidates who are refusing to listen to “the truth.”
Of course, it depends on who the politicians are. Democrats previously challenged certification of prior Republican presidents under the very same law used on Jan. 6. They also refused to listen to those who said that there were no valid grounds for challenge. During the Trump inauguration in 2017, there were also riots fueled by such claims. Yet, there were no indictments nor should there have been.
The difference seems to be Trump himself. It seems that there is no cost too great in the pursuit of Trump, even the defining right to free speech. Former Obama administration acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal actually declared that the indictment “is up there with Dred Scott, it is up there with Brown v. Board of Education.” It was a curious statement since the Dred Scott decision was a disgrace that treated African Americans as property, and led later to a Civil War. Likewise, treating this indictment as the same as ending segregation across the nation shows how untethered the analysis has become in the Trump era.
While Smith and pundits raised the Jan. 6 riot in defending the indictment, Trump was notably not indicted for any conspiracy to incite or seditious conspiracy. Those were the charges that the same pundits and politicians claimed were clearly established. They were used as the basis for the second Trump impeachment. Yet, Smith clearly did not find sufficient evidence to support such charges and instead charged him with spreading falsehoods about the election.
For centuries, we have debated what it would take to get a free people to abandon core liberties or due process. For many, Trump is the irresistible temptation and the First Amendment is now that “monstrous law” that makes them “grow sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself.”
During Trump’s first term in the White House, the Democrat Party spent thousands of hours making the claim that the 2016 election was rigged by Trump in conspiracy with the Russians. The truth was that the claim of election rigging was initiated and spread by Hillary Clinton in conspiracy with the Russians.
During George W. Bush’s first term in the White House, the Democrat Party spent thousands of hours making the claim that the 2000 election was rigged, even though a majority of the legal experts serving as Supreme Court justices at the time disagreed. The Democratic Party shamelessly rejected the ruling of those experts.
“That is, of course, entirely wrong. Just because you are told something does not mean that you have to believe it, or that you cannot publicly contradict what you have been told.”
Nor does it make what you’ve been told true. President Trump believes, as I and approximately one hundred million others believe, that the 2020 was absolutely “stolen.” Furthermore, that it was an constitutionally unlawful election.
You are, of course, wrong on Pence. There is nothing contained anywhere within the Constitution that permits Congress to decide or choose dueling electors; they simply do not have that authority. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is therefore unconstitutional. Which means that this function, if necessary, must devolve by default unto the President of the Senate. You know that! And that any disagreement must ultimately land in our highest court.
So what is this then? Well, let me tell you: Democrats absolutely cannot permit history to record the 2020 as an unlawful or stolen election; such a narrative, recorded as fact, or truth – being that which we believe with all certainty, as I and many others do – would permanently, forever, destroy the Democrat Party. One cannot survive this given a free people. And poof they were gone! So there ya have it, as Biden himself said: God Save The Queen! In the merry olde of our ancestry, which to this very day does NOT have a constitution…
The Supreme Court disagrees with you that the ECA is unconstitutional. LOL that you think Kamala Harris has the power you attribute to the VP.
The “Supreme Court” also “decided” that abortion was a constitutional federal right per Roe v. Wade, which, incidentally, was an actionable, impeachable, high criminal act, if not treasonous, for Justices to willfully and deliberately subvert and not support, per their sworn oath, the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution may only be modified through the exercise of the constitutional amendment process. The Constitution may not be amended through legislation or other acts of the legislative branch. The Electoral Count Act is legislation. The Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional.
betuadollar, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 hasn’t yet been litigated by SCOTUS. In 2020, the Court basically said decisions on electoral votes is a Congress problem, not Judicial issue, based on the 1887 act. It seems the Act itself wasn’t being challenged as being unconstitutional against the text of the 12th Amendment. The 12th doesn’t say anything about whether or not electoral votes can be challenged nor does it designate authority for “who” counts the votes. For those two reasons, I agree with you, the 1887 Act and it’s attempt to clarify the vagueness and absence of clarity about any disputed electoral votes, might indeed be unconstitutional, but that specific question wasn’t asked for the Court to decide in 2020, as far as I can tell via web searches. To me, this is another case the Court *should* accept and review if it ever is challenged, but I don’t believe for a second that anyone in Congress will seek that review and therefore will not challenge the Act’s constitutionality. Remember, just as every law isn’t broken until you’re caught, no law passed by Congress is unconstitutional until SCOTUS says so.
The two indictment columns JT posted here and another one in the Hill today are at a high level and conclusory with very little legal analysis and reasoning. I hope in the coming days and weeks JT fills this void and really analyzes the specifics of the indictment to the first amendment case law. I will say many have filled the void here with their analysis of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the indictment (good earlier exchanges between Daniel and Anonymous for example), but would like to hear more detail from the good professor.
If I had the money to invest, I’d be buying stock of the company that makes Kevlar and companies in similar lines of protective gear.
Vague though it might be, that is the type of comment that can result in a visit from the Secret Service.
So now investment advice, or the provision thereof, is criminal?
Is this Lavrentiy Beria, Mike Nifong, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller or Jack Smith?
C’mon, man, I know it’s you!
It is the type of investment advice that can get you having to pay thousands of dollars in attorney fees when the Secret Service or FBI comes calling. If you’re lucky.
So now investment advice, or the provision thereof, is criminal?
That’s a lot like saying “…peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
U mean the Gestapo?
“…Seeks to Bag Donald Trump…”
~+~
I am reminded of a “hunting” picture I saw pinned onto a bulletin board at a gun shop twenty or so years ago. It was among many similar where hunters were posing next to an elk, deer, bear, and such that they have bagged during a hunt. Nearly all had backgrounds consisting of forest, mountains, or wheatfields, but one stood out.
It featured a hunter next to his prize, a bison. Yet, there were other bison grazing behind him, that was odd I thought at first, then I saw why. There was a wooden fence……..he shot his bison in a corral. What a poseur. I guess he had to have his picture on the wall amoung real hunters who bagged challenging game but instead he looked pathetic and a bit craven. There is a bison farm about an hour’s drive from there and I suspect that is where he cunningly tracked this bison.
The case with this prosecutor isn’t really the same. But bagging a trophy at any cost has its appeal to some, no matter what the optics.
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT OR ACTIVISM?
JUDICIAL SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND REPUBLIC!
The Supreme Court must act to strike down the perverse and unconstitutional acts of the Biden executive branch, in order to support the Constitution and to save the American restricted-vote republic.
The only licit and constitutional requirement for Judicial Review is the completion of an act of the legislative branch or the completion of an act of the executive branch – the passage of legislation or the execution of an act.
The persecution of President Donald J. Trump and biased interference in the 2024 presidential election, through the illicit, insidious and malicious juridical acts of the executive branch, are illegal and unconstitutional, and must be struck down by immediate Judicial Review.
The doctrine of Judicial Review applies to State and Local governmental levels, including the Office of the New York County District Attorney.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Power of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions. The Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review. It arises instead from an 1803 decision known as Marbury v. Madison.
– Justia
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Judicial Review – Key takeaways
The definition of judicial review is the power of the courts to determine if an act of Congress or the Executive is constitutional. The court may strike down a law or an executive action that is not in accord with the U.S. Constitution.
The United States government is a system of checks and balances and separation of powers. The Judicial Branch is an independent branch of government with the power to check the legislative and executive branches through the powerful judicial practice of judicial review.
– Vaia
_____
Judicial Restraint
On one side are those who favor a strict constructionist approach that emphasizes judicial restraint. Strict constructionists believe that judges should not create policy and instead only judge limiting themselves to applying rules clearly stated in the Constitution. This approach to decision-making limits policymaking decisions by judges, instead relying on precedent and legislatures.
Judicial Activism
On the other side are those who advocate for judicial activism: the belief that the Constitution is a living document and that judges should be free to make policy and alleviate needs and correct instances of discrimination that are ignored in the political process.
– Vaia
Jonathan: There is one guy who is treating Jack Smith’s indictment seriously. It’s Donald J. Trump, the criminal defendant. Less than 24 hours after his arraignment DJT posted this deranged threat on Truth social: “If you go after me, I’m coming after you”. Did DJT violate his terms of release? You bet he did. During his arraignment DJT swore he would not make any effort to influence or retaliate against witnesses or take any other actions that might obstruct the administration of justice in the case.
Jack Smith also thinks DJT violated his terms of release and yesterday he filed for a protective order with Judge Chutkan
against DJT. In any other criminal case prosecutors would ask for severe sanctions–including pre-trial detention. Smith came short of that but said: “All the proposed order seeks is to prevent the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public”. Smith is about to release to DJT all his discovery material–including the names of witnesses in the case. Smith doesn’t want DJT to use that material to try influence or intimidate potential witnesses. I would expect Judge Chutkan to tighten the screws–to spell out what DJT can and cannot do. If he violates those restrictions he could be facing some jail time. Now if I were one of DJT’s defense attorneys I would tell him to just shut up–make no further comments on the indictment. Most clients would follow the advice of counsel. But don’t expect that from the Trumpster. He is a corned wild animal who lashes out in every direction against those who want to cage him. It’s what crime bosses do when they are indicted.
Now you like to cite polls you think support your position. The latest polls won’t please you. The latest polls show two-thirds of Americans think the charges against DJT are serious and 52% support charging him. Will any of this have an affect on DJT’s chances of getting the GOP nomination? Mike Pence thinks so. He says his campaign donations have surged since he publicly came out against DJT and says he is not qualified to be the next president. And remember Pence will be a likely witness in Jack Smith’s case. What happens in the GOP debates when a Q comes up about the Smith indictment? What will DJT say in response? Will he attack Pence? There are already court orders they prohibit DJT from talking to witnesses without the presence of counsel. Stay tuned because this is going to be a wild ride!
“…terms of release?”
– “Dennis the Maniac”
_________________
It appears the “court’s” order is unconstitutional.
Please cite the Constitution wherein any court is provided the power to deny the 1st Amendment freedom of speech, or to amend the Constitution.
According to the 1st Amendment, Real President Donald J. Trump fully enjoys the freedom of speech.
_________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And i bet you love gag orders, which are unconstitutional in their entirety. “Congress shall make no law abridging…” that is construed to mean “no judge shall make an edict abridging….”
A DEFENDANT should have every right to sway the public/potential jurors pretrial. You know why? Because they INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
A protective order is one thing. Intimidating witnesses or potential jurors, or even prosecutors cannot be tolerated. But gag orders are horsesh!t.
I am a libertarian who did not vote for Trump in either election. These politically motivated prosecutions make me want to vote for him.
+100
However, if i lived in georgia i probably would have voted for him, because a libertarian vote there is a vote for democrats. And they are the existential threat to this country.
Barnum, do you think the recent Democrat Party has been good for America? Are you happy with Biden? Why else would you place your vote so it wouldn’t count against fascism? It was not for or against Trump. It was for or against fascism. In today’s world you choose between imperfection or fascism. A choice for perfection loses every time and provides fascism an extra boost.
We are not dealing with the old Democrat Party.
Just another GrannySmith’s apple dumblings.
Jonathan: Still beating your tin can lid that the latest Jack Smith indictment of DJT is about the “criminalization of disinformation” and a “free speech killing machine”? As I have point out previously this case is not about protected speech. Jack Smith makes that clear on p. 2 of the indictment. But it seems this will be your false claim and that of the MAGA crowd right up to when DJT goes to trial.
You seem perplexed that DJT was not charged by Smith with “seditious conspiracy”. Harry Litman, former US Attorney and Asst. AG in the DOJ, has a simple answer. Writing in the LA Times yesterday Litman says: “Smith could have gone for broke by charging Trump with seditious conspiracy. He chose not to–wisely in my view. The crimes charged will be simple to prove and less vulnerable to appellate reversal down the line. If he can secure a conviction for those crimes, it will adequately hold Trump guilty in fact and in history”. That’s also my view and something important you missed!
“But it seems this will be your false claim…”
Dennis, As you regurgitate the Democrat/media talking points and spin….not to be confused with “the truth” or “the facts”…..does it ever occur to you that YOU are being fed false information? and that YOU are making false claims? and that YOU do not understand the situation?
You are an insufferable tool.
Jack Smith makes that clear on p. 2 of the indictment.
And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Do you think the court needed jack smith to spend 4 pages explaining the first amendment? Yea, and neither did he.
“I have a great idea, lets repeat over and over how its not about free speech, right in the indictment, so they can’t use a free speech defense!!”—-dumbass junior lawyer in jack smiths office
“Great idea! And the loyal followers will repeat it ad nauseum!” —-jack smith, between bites of his message sending subway sandwich
A truly non-legal, simple comment here.
In any kind of adversarial presentation, the parties quietly try to size up each other at the onset.
When Jack Smith first appeared on the scene, I remember thinking, wow, what a menacing expression on his face; what a determined vengeance coming from his stare.
Perhaps he was given this assignment more to frighten people than to articulate a doable complaint.
At the end of the day the Satanist-Pedos-Pedo Supporters are very pissed at Trump & Trump supporters. I believe that’s the reason others & I think is why all their attacks on Americans & other Nation States.
BTW: Infowars, MadMaxWorld.TV & other New American/World Media & experts are doing a pretty good job getting info. People should help pass it along like with this info below. Hell repost this whole comment & let the people decide.
********
In never-before-seen footage that was withheld by Fox News, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that January 6th was a complete debacle and a “cover up.”
https://www.infowars.com/posts/capitol-police-chief-challenged-j6-narrative-in-never-aired-tucker-carlson-interview/
BTW: Infowars, MadMaxWorld.TV & other New American/World Media & experts are doing a pretty good job getting info.
Holy crap, did you actually just write that. You did……..
Let me guess you’re another vaccine damaged person & ignorant?
ICYMI: Jack Smith LIED in Trump Indictment – PURPOSELY Omitted Trump’s Call for Supporters to Protest “Peacefully and Patriotically”
by Cristina Laila Aug. 5, 2023 3:35 pm
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/icymi-jack-smith-lied-latest-trump-indictment-purposely/
You can truly smell the desperation coming from the cold sweat of the prog/left. With each attack by a small convenience store owner on a gang of thug shoplifters to the push back on Bud Lite, middle America is signalling that they have had enough. This latest hail Mary attempt to denigrate Trump is only adding to his appeal to those who want to shut down the prog/left idiocy that has plagued us since LBJ started all the socialist nonsense with “The Great Society”. They know that if they can’t stop Trump with all the powers currently in their grasp, that they are headed for defeat by those who finally are drawing back the curtain on what nefarious plans the left has/had for this nation.
Joe Biden is the criminal:
@MarcoPolo501c3
“We reached out to every single pimp, hooker, drug dealer, and business partner on Hunter Biden’s laptop…
We put all of his emails and photos online… You have FARA violations, money laundering, sex trafficking, and conspiracy to commit bribery…
Not one email has proven to be false… We put all of the metadata out there… When you go through the emails, they clearly show how the Bidens were an agent for a foreign principal…
Hunter was on the hook for Joe Biden’s living expenses… There was a joint bank account between Hunter Biden, Eric Schwerin, and Joe Biden… Emails prove it.
Pg. 199, in the subsection under business-related crimes on unreported income and gifts… It goes through emails of how Eric Schwerin and Hunter Biden shared a joint account to pay Joe Biden’s bills:
-$2,600 to a contractor
-$1475 to a painter
-$1239 for air conditioning
Hunter was the bagman. His business model was FARA violations…
Joe isn’t listed on official documents, but Hunter pays his living expenses, house payments, and everything else…
Hunter’s business paid for Joe’s second iPhone. His burner phone… That phone was exclusively for Hunter and Joe…
The Secret Service didn’t harden the phone. It was a clear national security risk. It was probably bugged by multiple Five Eyes countries…
It’s tax fraud because you got money going to Joe every single year without declaring it as a gift… It is FARA violations, and because it’s FARA violations, it’s money laundering.
Again, this is all laid out through emails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, pictures, screenshots, audio recordings, and videos… Joe Biden got the money through house payments and joint bank accounts…
The report is free to read online… We go through all the sex-related crimes. There are 191… They’ll see the correspondence, the pictures of the sex act (genitalia redacted), and the mode of transportation that Hunter paid for the women.
You literally see the blurred-out footjob next to the airplane ticket in the report. There is no conjecture or extrapolation…
Uber receipts… Amtrak receipts… Airfare receipts.
Hunter blew through a million dollars on hookers and blow in 11 months. At the end of 2018, he asked Joe for a $75k wire so he could check into rehab. The very next day, he’s wiring $10,000 to a Russian pimp…
On May 24, 2018, Hunter mistakenly paid a Russian pimp $25,000, and a Secret Service agent got calls about Hunter using Joe’s account for the payment.
So, Joe Biden’s bank account was used to pay a Russian pimp… We have the Wells Fargo email receipts…
The dossier in total details 459 violations of state and federal laws and regulations… The drug-related crimes are included because Joe Biden was the lead architect of the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine…
The very narcotic that Joe instituted mandatory minimums for was the narcotic that his son abused… At the height of irony, Hunter did the very type of cocaine that Joe Biden put minorities in prison for a mandatory minimum of 5 years…
We have 20 separate drug deals of crack cocaine with the U.S. President’s son. We put the name and number of the drug dealer…
In certain cases, the drug dealer was prosecuted, and Hunter wasn’t… This is the epitome of unequal application of the law.
——–
@MarcoPolo501c3
released a 630-page “Report on the Biden Laptop” that documents 459 crimes committed by the Bidens & their associates.
•140 business crimes
•191 sex crimes
•128 drug crimes
I don’t really care about the sex or drug crimes. I want all attention and investigation focused on the “business crimes.”
I want them to bag Joe Biden.
Lin, “business crimes” as such are not the point. What the network of payments through llcs, the 1023, the laptop and Devon Archer’s testimony make clear is that Joe Biden was the key player in a wide-ranging influence peddling/protection racket. He was the “Krysha” or roof (in Russian) shielding those who paid up from legal and other threats, and opening doors that would otherwise be closed.
The retention of Hunter Biden by Burisma, and Zlochevsky’s exploitation of the defensive leverage Joe Biden provided, should be studied in business and law schools as a classic example of sophisticated political corruption.
Hi Daniel: Actually, I meant what I said. I was referring to how Hunter’s “business crimes,” (–ostensibly tangential, but in reality, perhaps more inclusive) might dragnet and expose more players.
I’ve just reread the indictment. There is no crime, despite the four counts cited and the heavy breathing. There is nothing Trump and the so-called co-conspirators did but make arguments to try and persuade officials and legislators to take action, and implement steps to have alternative electors in place to maintain options in case the arguments worked. The efforts to persuade failed for lack of evidence on the facts and sound constitutional theory on the law.
And all the government functionaries protecting him, obama, hillary, bill etc. This doesn’t start and end with biden.
Imagine if this evidence pointed to Trump’s kids or Trump himself? The media would be having ’emergency alert breaking news’ livestreams going 24/7.
But bc it exposes how utterly corrupt and dishonest Joe Biden is….and how disgusting his son and his family are…..
And how corrupt the Democrat Party is….
the fake news are DEAD SILENT and only lying to the public about all of it….protecting Biden…..and only talking about Trump….
The complete lack of interest by every single mainstream “news” organization is proof positive of just how biased and fake the “news” is….
and just how corrupt and biased these so-called “journalists” are….
and how utterly corrupt the Democrat Party is….
and how irretrievably corrupt the DOJ and our justice system actually is…..
Very scary indeed….
Any citizen not awake by now, will never wake up….
IMPEACH Biden
IMPEACH Garland
# Trump 2024 #
There are still Democrats who have not been indicted for trying to get electors to change their vote for Trump in 2016. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-petition-asks-electoral-college-not-vote-trump-n686511. Why have these Democrats not been indicted? The answer is simple. Just like Donald Trump sincerely believed that the election was stolen these Democrats sincerely believed that the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton. Is it now a crime to believe something that may not be true? There are still people who post on this blog everyday who still believe that Trump is a Russian stooge even after they have been advised by The New York Times, CBS News, The Washington Post and Politico Magazine that it is not true. Their state of mind has not changed on the issue. Should they then be indicted and put in prison for holding false assumptions? If holding false assumptions is a crime trillions of dollars will have to be allocated to the building of many new prisons to house those who are found guilty of FalseSpeek. Once the FalseSpeek genie is out of the bottle we will all be in constant fear if the government. It seems that such a world is exactly what the Democratic Party has in mind for us all. As each day passes you can see their greater commitment to this goal and now instead of being hidden they exclaim it right out in the open. Department Against Disinformation or Department Against FalseSpeek, it’s the same thing.
TiT,
Well said.
Thanks UpstateFarmer, I am sad that I have to say the words that defend free speech in a nation that’s very foundation depends on it. Yet here we are called to defend it with our lives if necessary against those who would destroy it for the sake of their own power. Machiavelli said that a nation that wishes to conquer another nation that has known freedom should understand that even though the people are being oppressed they will continue to pass their memories of freedom to future generations. Machiavelli warned that if you conquer a nation that has known freedom you do so at your own peril. Todays lovers of “the ends justify the means” philosophy should take heed.
Machiavelli was right. And, yes. They. Should.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-petition-asks-electoral-college-not-vote-trump-n686511.
Read the article.
Now, does that really equate to what Trump and company plotted in 2020?
I mean….let’s be real.
If exactly what was done in the article was done in 2020, none of us would even be here.
Bill – it doees equate b/c both were attempts to overturn the official result of the election. Both were longshots based on contorversial legal theories. Both were really a type of protest.
How does it equate?
Show me who in the government was actually trying to get the electoral college changed.
I’ll wait.
Now, now…you know the score. Logic and reason have no effect on people living in Double-Standardsstan, thinkitthrough. Best you can hope to see is blank stares. But it’ll sure be fun to watch when their own rules are used against them, ten-fold.
In one eerie sense, this case does indeed mirror Brown v. Board of Education, which, as Turley says, ended segregation across the nation. If Smith wins his case, it will end free speech across the nation.
Monsieur you shirt is un-tucked, your pantaloons are worn thin, and those ungodly shoes are not proper attire for these proceedings! Monsieur, you must resign or be held in contempt.
Smith is extremely dubious, it’s apparent that his motto for persecution (or in lawyerly terms prosecution) is to throw as must crap on the wall until something sticks. To date nothing has stuck, yet it seems the thing getting stuck is the odor emanating from his filings.
Did President Trump and his counsel have questions regarding the 2020 election results and their trustworthiness, is without doubt a truthful conclusion. Did the president have other counsel saying there was complete trust in the results, sure? Has there ever been a thorough forensic investigation of the results? There could never have been, the machines and other proof were removed, deleted or destroyed in many locations. There was no court that wanted to take sequestering the ballots, machines, voting registrations or reported voting records to determine if fraud had occurred as the president had surmised. The courts no doubt didn’t want to jeopardize the public faith in our election system and surmised better to error on faith than possible fraud.
I will repost what I presented yesterday under another subject:
From data reported by Census.gov and FEC.gov: how can anyone determine if there was fraud or not?
Voting in 2020 data from: Census.gov
231,419,670 Voting age
(all numbers below rounded)
168,308,000 reported as registered
25,782,000 reported not registered
37,503,000 no response to registration
154,628,000 reported voted
40,561,000 reported not voted
36,404,000 no response to voting
FEC.gov 158,383,403 million voted
There were 35 candidates running for president not including: none of these or write-in votes.
Trump: 74,216,154
Biden: 81,268,924
Others: 2,898,325
“The courts no doubt didn’t want to jeopardize the public faith in our election system and surmised better to error on faith than possible fraud.”
Therein lies the problem, GW. 20 states in 2020 and more than 60% of the voting public today still believe the election/results are questionable. Yet the Court, by denying practically everyone who called “shenanigans” – disallowing any attempt at presenting evidence in court itself – decided instead to shrug their shoulders, yawn and do nothing. This lack of interest on the part of the Court didn’t result in more, or even the same level of faith in the system before 2020. It only ensured the same 60-ish% of the public will have less faith their Government will conduct the next election any differently.
JAFO
Faith in the Judiciary has collapsed. President Trump being charged for nefarious crimes is just the latest example of the judiciaries move to negate law and order. Laws are ignored or watered down to sway the liberal lefts desires.
The Supreme Court has taken a lassitude (lack of interest) attitude towards equal justice, and the election of 2020 is a prime example. They in their refusal to enjoin lower courts in an examination of the 2020 results is a glaring indication. The XV Amendment uses the word ‘Abridged’ which goes directly to the votes cast in 2020 and how states used the pandemic to alter all sorts of election laws without due process. In addition, Article III of the Constitution makes reference to giving the Supreme Court rights, reading as “…to controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…”, if the election to the highest office of the United States the Presidency, is not under the umbrella of the Supreme Court, then what is. There is no reference in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has to acquiesce to lower or state courts in matter affecting all the country as a whole. Twiddling one’s thumbs is not a solution.
I’m a layman not a lawyer, so maybe my interpretation is full of water, but if the Supreme Court does not have the power to address the issue of a fair and impartial election of the presidency, then let fraud abound, at least we’d know the rules of the game where anything goes!
We’re agreed on every point including ‘what’s the point?’ On second thought, I wonder, could it be as simple as, “Hey, leave us outta your State vs State problems. These robes get hot. Besides, we’re NOT Arkancidle!” ?
Nearing if not already here, an ungovernable country with all it’s institutions discredited, its elites only sustained through tyrannical use of legal instruments, the law as a cudgel, that no longer serves the population.
“Human kindness, overflowing,
and I think it’s going to rain today.”
lyrics, R. Newman
Since the government has been overthrowing foreign nations with social media they couldn’t resist overthrowing the USA with it.
Now we see the result of deeply obvious total government control of free speech, which has already occurred.
Might as well face it, instead of running in circles around the pit.
They had a lock so solid by the time their covid plot hit they totaled the entire economy in favor of their big box corporate pig friends and rich families, then fiat printed their indulgences. No matter, they destroyed destroyed freedom.
They had worked their way up to that with shelter in place for weather and terror events, many of the latter which they were the main entrapment participants.
They will keep working it, this is just another show so you all know your place, which is at the bottom of the torture barrel.
This one is lawfare torture, amongst other things.
We need that Georgia indictment to pump up the Trump coffers
” . . . what it would take to get a free people to abandon core liberties or due process.”
Here’s one ideology, now widespread, that it takes:
The noxious idea that a “noble” desire (e.g., to “get Trump”) justifies using any means necessary. When you have unprincipled cultural leaders, no principle is safe — including those that protect individual rights (such as free speech).
Sam,
That is what I fear.
They would be willing to destroy America to “get Trump.”
If he were to win in 2024, I would not put it past them to concoct some BS story (Russia hacked the election in favor of Trump!) or something like that.