Trump's speech did not constitute legal incitement, which is why he hasn't been indicted for that crime. I strongly doubt that he had advance knowledge of the plans to invade the Capitol or that he conspired with any of the rioters to do so.
What Trump did do, in my humble opinion, is wage a campaign of lies about the election in order t…
Trump's speech did not constitute legal incitement, which is why he hasn't been indicted for that crime. I strongly doubt that he had advance knowledge of the plans to invade the Capitol or that he conspired with any of the rioters to do so.
What Trump did do, in my humble opinion, is wage a campaign of lies about the election in order to bring public pressure from GOP voters to bear on GOP Senators and Congressmen to vote to reject Biden electors under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, 3 U.S.C. sec. 3, and throw the election into the House of Representatives. Does that constitute a coup attempt? It clearly would if he was conspiring with the rioters to use force to compel Congress to act. But absent such conspiracy to use force, it's unlikely that he broke the laws against insurrection and seditious conspiracy. To be sure, Trump violated the foundational norm of democracy, respecting the results of an election, and if he succeeded, historians would probably call that a successful coup, but the water is muddy, which is why Attorney General Garland won't go there.
Much like Stacy Abrams and Hilary Clinton respected those norms?
Give me a fucking break. There are massive questions about that election in at least a third of voters' minds. And if Trump did think there were shenanigans in the vote, he, as someone sworn to defend the constitution, which voting rights are a strong portion thereof, is duty-bound to bring that to the attention of congress.
Norms are what we do, but they should be thrown in the wastebasket of eternity when they are being used to screw over parts of the country. Remember, it was a norm to beat your wife at one point.
Hi there Doug. Just following up to see if you had any thoughts on Conservative Contrarian's question about Hillary Clinton's or Al Gore's claims of election fraud.
Cognitive dissonance can be painful, eh? I wouldn't think too much about that question either, if I were you.
May I take your comment as agreement with my assessment that Trump deliberately lied about election fraud? You point, I take it, is that his lies were no big deal because Mrs. Clinton and Gore also lied about election fraud.
The bigger Democratic lie in my opinion was the claim that Trump was a Russian intelligence asset, a traitor, who stole the 2016 election in a conspiracy with Putin. The Democrats pushed that lie, which originated in a fabrication financed by Hillary Clinton, for three years, trying to force Trump from office. That was outrageous, in my personal opinion. The Democrats' pushing of that lie was one of the reasons I voted for Trump in the last election.
What do I do now? I can't vote for the Democrats, who have never apologized for the Russia hoax, and whose economic polices are disastrous. I can't vote for Trump, who is still insisting that the election was fraudulent and who tried to overturn the election via his campaign of lies. I'm back to where I was in 2016, when I didn't cast a vote for president.
What are your sources that cause you to conclude there was no election fraud? After all, we can only agree Trump lied about it if we have all facts in front of us, correct?
Both Greenwald and Turley, who should know, have said that Trump's speech wasn't LEGALLY incitement. I'll take their word for it. My take was that it was certainly inciting something, but carefully hedged to stay within the law. Apparently he speaks more carefully than it appears, and had decent lawyers.
Maybe you notice that up above I wrote, "Trump's speech did not constitute legal incitement." Of course, that's just the start, not the end, of the inquiry.
Trump's speech did not constitute legal incitement, which is why he hasn't been indicted for that crime. I strongly doubt that he had advance knowledge of the plans to invade the Capitol or that he conspired with any of the rioters to do so.
What Trump did do, in my humble opinion, is wage a campaign of lies about the election in order to bring public pressure from GOP voters to bear on GOP Senators and Congressmen to vote to reject Biden electors under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, 3 U.S.C. sec. 3, and throw the election into the House of Representatives. Does that constitute a coup attempt? It clearly would if he was conspiring with the rioters to use force to compel Congress to act. But absent such conspiracy to use force, it's unlikely that he broke the laws against insurrection and seditious conspiracy. To be sure, Trump violated the foundational norm of democracy, respecting the results of an election, and if he succeeded, historians would probably call that a successful coup, but the water is muddy, which is why Attorney General Garland won't go there.
Much like Stacy Abrams and Hilary Clinton respected those norms?
Give me a fucking break. There are massive questions about that election in at least a third of voters' minds. And if Trump did think there were shenanigans in the vote, he, as someone sworn to defend the constitution, which voting rights are a strong portion thereof, is duty-bound to bring that to the attention of congress.
Norms are what we do, but they should be thrown in the wastebasket of eternity when they are being used to screw over parts of the country. Remember, it was a norm to beat your wife at one point.
If you are saying that Trump is as dishonest as Stacy Abrams and Hillary Clinton, I'd have to agree with you.
I am saying that throwing up claims to norms that are routinely broken by the other team is disingenuous horseshit.
But you knew that.
" To be sure, Trump violated the foundational norm of democracy, ..."
LOL! That's what Vlad Putin says about his opponents--before having them poisoned.
Is Hillary equally guilty for claiming Trump stole 2016? How about Gore related to 2000?
See my response to Jonathan above.
Hi there Doug. Just following up to see if you had any thoughts on Conservative Contrarian's question about Hillary Clinton's or Al Gore's claims of election fraud.
Cognitive dissonance can be painful, eh? I wouldn't think too much about that question either, if I were you.
May I take your comment as agreement with my assessment that Trump deliberately lied about election fraud? You point, I take it, is that his lies were no big deal because Mrs. Clinton and Gore also lied about election fraud.
The bigger Democratic lie in my opinion was the claim that Trump was a Russian intelligence asset, a traitor, who stole the 2016 election in a conspiracy with Putin. The Democrats pushed that lie, which originated in a fabrication financed by Hillary Clinton, for three years, trying to force Trump from office. That was outrageous, in my personal opinion. The Democrats' pushing of that lie was one of the reasons I voted for Trump in the last election.
What do I do now? I can't vote for the Democrats, who have never apologized for the Russia hoax, and whose economic polices are disastrous. I can't vote for Trump, who is still insisting that the election was fraudulent and who tried to overturn the election via his campaign of lies. I'm back to where I was in 2016, when I didn't cast a vote for president.
>>>May I take your comment as agreement with my assessment that Trump deliberately lied about election fraud?>>>
No, because I do not know that Trump lied about that.
>>>What do I do now?>>>
Sadly, the best answer I can offer is to enjoy the ride until it breaks down completely.
What are your sources that cause you to conclude there was no election fraud? After all, we can only agree Trump lied about it if we have all facts in front of us, correct?
Both Greenwald and Turley, who should know, have said that Trump's speech wasn't LEGALLY incitement. I'll take their word for it. My take was that it was certainly inciting something, but carefully hedged to stay within the law. Apparently he speaks more carefully than it appears, and had decent lawyers.
Maybe you notice that up above I wrote, "Trump's speech did not constitute legal incitement." Of course, that's just the start, not the end, of the inquiry.