Former US President Donald Trump has been indicted on four counts on Tuesday, by a grand jury in the District of Columbia, over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election
Gonna be treating this thread as a megathread, hope y'all don't mind. I was interested in the free speech defense, so I did some research on it. I have 0 legal background, so I'm not entirely sure...
Exemplary
Gonna be treating this thread as a megathread, hope y'all don't mind.
I was interested in the free speech defense, so I did some research on it. I have 0 legal background, so I'm not entirely sure if I've interpreted everything correctly, and am totally open to correction.
TLDR: It doesn't seem like Trump has anywhere to hide behind the First Amendment.
The free speech argument is dependent on a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio which asserted that unless the speech was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," then the speech is protected. In other words, simply advocating for an illegal or harmful action can still be protected under the First Amendment.
Jay Sterling Silver indicates a couple ways Trump's language during the Jan 6 insurrection could be considered protected free speech, two of which are somewhat dependent on the politics of the judges themselves.
First, intent. Trump does make comments asking for peaceful protest.
These thinly-veiled attempts to avert liability as he incited the crowd may provide our conservative justices with just enough cover to find an absence of intent.
Second, the fact that Republicans insist to characterize the insurrection as "legitimate political discourse." While this may seem to be a bald-faced lie,
Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, could be a concern in this respect. His wife, Ginni, is a prominent Make America Great Again (“MAGA”) leader who condemned the House investigation into the events of January 6th as “legal harassment to private citizens who have done nothing wrong.” Her husband, in turn, “speak[s] [generally] of a shared Thomas philosophy,” making one wonder if he would share her view on the storming of the Capitol.
Third, it may be that Trump's speech did not actually incite the violence if the insurrectionists were already committed to the violence.
The widespread assumption that Mr. Trump’s announcement to the crowd that “we’re going to the Capitol” and warning that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” convinced the demonstrators to descend upon the Capitol may, in an odd way, be problematic. It may represent the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy in which one event is presumed to be the cause of an immediately subsequent event. If, in fact, the demonstrators had gathered, already harboring the intent to invade the Capitol to “stop the steal,” then, as stirring as the ex-President’s speech may have been, it would not have served as the cause of the subsequent violence or influenced their pre-existing intent. Therefore, Mr. Trump’s speech cannot be said to have been likely to produce (or make the protestors more likely to engage in) the carnage that day. One cannot logically be said to have made remarks that are likely to produce or increase the chance of an action that the listener is already committed to performing.
However, J. S. Silver notes that criminal law does still sanction intention, even if harm was not committed. In addition, there are tweets and other evidence to suggest that certain rioters explicitly were swayed by Trump's speech.
According to Professor Rubenfeld, Brandenburg should be best understood as a test to “determine whether an individual intentionally used speech so closely and directly engaged with a particularized course of prohibited conduct that the individual may be treated as having participated in that conduct.” Trump concluded his speech at 1:10 p.m. by telling the crowd: “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol…” While he did not accompany the crowd, the President led them to believe that he would and stated that it was time to go. The protesters listened to and acted upon his words.
Alan Z. Rozenshtein & Jed Handelsman Shugerman state that political speech should be given more protections, not less. "Inflammatory speech is (regrettably) common across the political spectrum," and should not necessarily be prosecuted. The fact that the electoral count certification is so important means that more extreme speech could be considered expected—"A First Amendment that only protects harmless, fringe movements that have no political influence is hardly worth its reputation as a core safeguard of liberty and democracy."
However, Rozenshtein and Shugerman still conclude that Trump's overt acts and attempts to join the march to the Capitol could meet the Brandenburg Test "without seakening the First Amendment's protections for inflammatory political speech."
Trump’s order to remove the magnetometers, while perhaps the most damning, was not the only relevant overt act that he performed. According to Hutchinson, Meadows said when Trump heard that the mob was chanting for the death of Vice President Pence, Trump replied that “Mike deserves it” and that the mob was not “doing anything wrong” And Trump’s tweet, while Pence’s life was actively in danger, that the vice president “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution” is additional evidence of knowledge and intent. But the tweet, like Trump’s speech itself, was both political speech and thus prima facie protected under the First Amendment, and at worst only ambiguously inciting. Thus we do not believe that it satisfies the overt-act requirement.
By contrast, Trump attempted, on multiple occasions, to personally lead the mob at the Capitol, demanding that the Secret Service drive him from the White House to the Capitol and allegedly fighting with a Secret Service agent who was driving him from the speech back to the White House. These orders and physical actions could, unlike ambiguous public speeches and tweets, count as overt acts. Had Trump personally led the crowd at the Capitol, that might well have inflamed them to even greater acts of violence. These acts went beyond mere speech and represent concrete steps to incite, insurrect, and obstruct; they thus can serve as a basis to establish both Trump’s intent and the likely imminent danger that his words and actions together presented.
Source: Rozenshtein, Alan Z. and Shugerman, Jed H., January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Solution (January 10, 2023). 37 Constitutional Commentary (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4256652
Am I wrong to feel like, at the very least, Conspiracy to Obstruct is a slam dunk case?
The entire free speech argument is a red herring. They're not prosecuting him for inciting the mob on January 6th, in fact the indictment explicitly says he has a constitutional right to lie about...
The entire free speech argument is a red herring. They're not prosecuting him for inciting the mob on January 6th, in fact the indictment explicitly says he has a constitutional right to lie about the election. They're prosecuting him for engaging in a deliberate conspiracy to overturn the results, specifically by pressuring state and federal officials, ginning up a sham Justice Department investigation, and appointing fake electors.
You can believe and claim that Bank of America is run by lizard people all you want, it doesn't give you the right to commit check fraud.
You might enjoy Legal Eagle's videos as he has converted this issue extensively. His most recent was just posted here and covers this exact subject: https://youtu.be/SbIhNmoZLJQ
You might enjoy Legal Eagle's videos as he has converted this issue extensively. His most recent was just posted here and covers this exact subject:
I will see what else I find to respond, but this article which I posted as it's own thread, might help. https://popehat.substack.com/p/people-are-lying-to-you-about-the Also this....
Haha, I was just reading that from your post! When I read "Sometimes these will be misstatements out of carelessness (I’m occasionally guilty on that) or ignorance" I was sort of wondering if that...
Haha, I was just reading that from your post! When I read "Sometimes these will be misstatements out of carelessness (I’m occasionally guilty on that) or ignorance" I was sort of wondering if that was what I was doing since I really don't have any background in law!
Anyway, I found it interesting that the articles I read don't seem to focus too heavily on the lies (as the National Review board op-ed seems to do). The lies are simply used to build context around intent. Instead, there seems to be far more focus on whether or not the speech could be considered to produce imminent harm.
The National Review board op-ed says:
In his press conference announcing the charges, Smith — for good reason — did not dwell on his questionable charges. He instead emphasized the Capitol riot. Anyone witnessing his remarks would have believed that Trump had incited a forcible attack on the Capitol. Of course, Smith has not charged him with any such thing because he doesn’t have the evidence to tie him criminally to the riot.
...But isn't that exactly what Conspiracy to Obstruct is? The argument specifically is that Trump "did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators... to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote" (from the official indictment).
Lastly, our editorial implies that Smith is aware of the flimsiness of the charges he has brought because, in his Tuesday statement, he lingered on the horrible outcomes Trump’s conduct produced rather than the statutes the former president is alleged to have violated. But just as every rational American supposedly should have known Trump’s lies were, in fact, lies, no one should need Jack Smith to take them by the hand and lead them to the conclusion that the riots were a direct consequence of the lies.
The only thing I would add is that there looks to me to be a lot of references in the indictment to Trump efforts to obstruct the certification that were earlier than the day of the riot. Not...
The only thing I would add is that there looks to me to be a lot of references in the indictment to Trump efforts to obstruct the certification that were earlier than the day of the riot. Not downstream effects but upstream. There were repeated and widespread attempts to find fake votes, certify fake electors, convince politicians including Mike Pence to fail to do their duty and certify the election. The riot is not needed to convict imho. Trump was the kingpin of a massive nationwide undertaking to obstruct the certification of the vote.
Peeking at /r/conservative hurt my soul. Literally saw a comment that said “Every indictment he gets just makes me want to vote for him more”. We live in absurd times.
Peeking at /r/conservative hurt my soul. Literally saw a comment that said “Every indictment he gets just makes me want to vote for him more”.
As he himself said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." Ain't that the truth... after years of getting away with pretty much anything, the...
As he himself said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." Ain't that the truth... after years of getting away with pretty much anything, the cynic in me doubts he will ever be held accountable for anything. Even if he is imprisoned, his cultist followers will never turn on him, and will probably just turn it into more fuel for the fire.
The biggest problem is that no one they trust has told them that he has done anything wrong. And they have decided that no one who would tell them that is anyone they should trust. Truly, we live...
The biggest problem is that no one they trust has told them that he has done anything wrong.
And they have decided that no one who would tell them that is anyone they should trust.
Part of the problem is that they are in a truth desert because they get all their news from fox and facebook and talk radio. The other part of the problem is that they kind of know that and don’t...
Part of the problem is that they are in a truth desert because they get all their news from fox and facebook and talk radio.
The other part of the problem is that they kind of know that and don’t care.
I don't see enough recognition that Trump has coopted the spirit (and probably a lot of fanbase) of "Pro Wrestling". He has turned his political opponents into the fictional "bad guys" in a...
they kind of know that and don’t care.
I don't see enough recognition that Trump has coopted the spirit (and probably a lot of fanbase) of "Pro Wrestling". He has turned his political opponents into the fictional "bad guys" in a Westlemania tournament and many of his supporters don't care about the contextual facts; they just want to see people rumble and see the bad guys get body-slammed.
Good analogy! They even have terms for the illusion of the wrestling act: kayfabe. There are wrestlers who are always in character and never break the illusion (Macho Man). The people who fall for...
Good analogy! They even have terms for the illusion of the wrestling act: kayfabe. There are wrestlers who are always in character and never break the illusion (Macho Man). The people who fall for kayfabe are the "marks" and the ones who know and just love the show are the "smarks" or just "smarts". All works just as well in politics, as you've said they even got "faces" and "heels" (good and bad guys).
Trump never breaks character, and when he enters the ring they cheer for him and boo whoever enters against him. Not because they understand the stakes, but because they want a show and their guy to "win".
Oh yeah (Macho Man voice), that “kayfabe” word unlocked a lot of search results for me. Maybe there is more on this topic than I thought. For example, an article in Political Studies Review:...
Oh yeah (Macho Man voice), that “kayfabe” word unlocked a lot of search results for me. Maybe there is more on this topic than I thought.
For example, an article in Political Studies Review:
So glad politics is being discussed in this context, because it fits so well. The reality is, as mentioned above, that conservative media has been playing this game so well, and their propaganda...
So glad politics is being discussed in this context, because it fits so well. The reality is, as mentioned above, that conservative media has been playing this game so well, and their propaganda is being eaten up uncritically that has brought us to this moment. As Jon Stewart said right to Tucker Carlson's face: You're hurting us.
How did I not know about this concept? Thank you! I wanted to learn a bit more and found a YouTube series How Politics Became Pro Wrestling that is interesting, also an article by Eric R. Weinstein.
Robert Evans discusses this at some length in his Behind the Bastards series on Vince McMahon. He claims that without McMahon, a longtime "friend" of Trump's (insofar as narcissists can be friends...
Robert Evans discusses this at some length in his Behind the Bastards series on Vince McMahon. He claims that without McMahon, a longtime "friend" of Trump's (insofar as narcissists can be friends with each other), we likely wouldn't have Trump as a political force. Trump's whole political persona maps closely to the pro wrestler pattern, even down to how there's always an excuse for why the face (in this case Trump, somehow) loses that involves dirty dealing on the part of the heels (the Democratic Deep State).
The connection between the two goes beyond rhetorical similarities as well. McMahon's wife also served as an adviser during Trump's administration, though in what capacity I don't presently recall.
She was like, secretary of small businesses or something. Anyway, without VKM and Jack Welch we wouldn't have had President Trump. Now there's an alternate history to ruminate on.
She was like, secretary of small businesses or something.
Anyway, without VKM and Jack Welch we wouldn't have had President Trump. Now there's an alternate history to ruminate on.
This is true-- I've learned so much from diversifying my sources. My underlying value system is still the same and I haven't stopped being a leftist, but it's allowed me to view situations with a...
Simply being exposed to other sources makes you question things. It brings awareness.
This is true-- I've learned so much from diversifying my sources. My underlying value system is still the same and I haven't stopped being a leftist, but it's allowed me to view situations with a different lens and to understand them on a more nuanced level. Nothing's as black and white as some people seem to think it is.
Others have already given good replies, but I'll give some specific sources I go to. Some mixture of Reuters, AP, and PBS Newshour does a good job of covering international and US news pretty...
Others have already given good replies, but I'll give some specific sources I go to.
Some mixture of Reuters, AP, and PBS Newshour does a good job of covering international and US news pretty comprehensively. Add in a local paper and a local NPR station, and I think you've got a fair idea of what's going on nearby and globally.
Likewise, while Reuters and AP skew much more intentionally neutral, PBS Newshour has segments that intentionally cover political viewpoints, to give a diversity of thought some exposure. There's always great back and forth between Capehart and Abernathy, for instance.
Not who you were talking to, but I really enjoy https://ground.news/ . They have AI generated summaries of news stories based on bais and break down which political biases are talking about what news.
Not who you were talking to, but I really enjoy https://ground.news/ . They have AI generated summaries of news stories based on bais and break down which political biases are talking about what news.
That is an interesting website, thanks for sharing. Unfortunate you need to subscribe to see the factuality assessment of some stories though, that feels like a pretty critical part to paywall.
That is an interesting website, thanks for sharing.
Unfortunate you need to subscribe to see the factuality assessment of some stories though, that feels like a pretty critical part to paywall.
Watching this all unfold in real time is surreal. It's like going to see a magician, where the magician tells you exactly what he is going to do then proceeds to fumble his way through the trick....
Watching this all unfold in real time is surreal. It's like going to see a magician, where the magician tells you exactly what he is going to do then proceeds to fumble his way through the trick. Then when you turn your head to say how bad it was you see that half the crowd is absolutely mystified.
This is not in just US you can see similar popularity of populist alt right in other countries. Strangely they seem for some reason friendly with Kremlin. Russia might be doing badly militarily in...
This is not in just US you can see similar popularity of populist alt right in other countries. Strangely they seem for some reason friendly with Kremlin.
Russia might be doing badly militarily in Ukraine, but they are still very good at using disinformation to make people in other countries do what they want.
Sadly, this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened in the US. Have you heard Rachel Maddow's podcasts Ultra and Bag Man? They cover the history of right-wing fascism in the 1940s and...
Sadly, this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened in the US. Have you heard Rachel Maddow's podcasts Ultra and Bag Man? They cover the history of right-wing fascism in the 1940s and a somewhat similar "cult" around, of all people, Spiro Agnew around the time of Watergate. It is frightening just how far back these movements stretch. They have been working for decades to infiltrate the government, completely undo the New Deal, and turn this place into even more of a dystopian hellscape than it already is.
I found myself in a position of having no choice but to visit a Walmart two days ago (Sunday). I realized that despite any generic Walmart being one of my favorite places to watch people, it also...
I found myself in a position of having no choice but to visit a Walmart two days ago (Sunday). I realized that despite any generic Walmart being one of my favorite places to watch people, it also made me realize that these people have a right to vote, and do.
I've known dumb people who stumble their way into good choices, so that makes me hopeful. While dumb people don't worry me too much, self-centered people with weak egos do. Unfortunately I think...
I've known dumb people who stumble their way into good choices, so that makes me hopeful.
While dumb people don't worry me too much, self-centered people with weak egos do. Unfortunately I think there are a few too many of those people around.
There's a maintenance guy that I know who I hire to do work around my house. He's the sweetest guy you'd ever meet. If anything, I could take advantage of him (he low-balls his hourly wage that he...
There's a maintenance guy that I know who I hire to do work around my house.
He's the sweetest guy you'd ever meet. If anything, I could take advantage of him (he low-balls his hourly wage that he asks for and low-balls the amount of time that it takes him to do work for me)--wife and I are constantly telling him stuff like, "No. you worked more than x hours. Don't short-change yourself.".
It astounds me that he's a HUGE Trump fan.
I say this mostly because Trump is all about being mean spirited. And this guy is all about being fair and kind. If anything, he's unfair to himself.
The other Trump supporters I know are aligned with Trump mentally ("be mean spirited ... fuck the other guy before he fucks you ... who cares, as long as the liberals are upset ... etc.")
Psychologically healthy people are fair and kind to themselves as well. What you describe ("he low-balls his hourly wage that he asks for and low-balls the amount of time that it takes him to do...
And this guy is all about being fair and kind. If anything, he's unfair to himself.
Psychologically healthy people are fair and kind to themselves as well. What you describe ("he low-balls his hourly wage that he asks for and low-balls the amount of time that it takes him to do work for me") does not sound like kindness, it sounds like a lack of healthy assertiveness. I would say people like that admire strongmen pretty often.
And that "kindness" might be superficial - your description reminded me of one ex-colleague of mine, always nice, always ready to help, even for free in his spare time... but when you looked closer, you discovered his Facebook posts with hateful conspiracy theories and angry outbursts and even at work, some kind of accumulated anger sometimes bubbled up seemingly out of nowhere - but always anger at someone else; like... he would be telling you how pissed off he is because his boss told him this or that, but when he talked to his boss, he always said that he was happy in the company and had nothing to complain about.
Interesting comment. I asked him once why he supported Trump and he said something to the effect of "We need someone strong to prevent other countries from pushing us around." So, you may have...
it sounds like a lack of healthy assertiveness. I would say people like that admire strongmen pretty often.
Interesting comment. I asked him once why he supported Trump and he said something to the effect of "We need someone strong to prevent other countries from pushing us around."
So, you may have locked onto the underlying issue.
That being said, he's a good egg (I've even seen his Facebook account. Ha!).
To be honest, that is not my original idea, that is the old concept of "authoritarian personality". Classics of psychology such as Erich Fromm, Adorno, and others have written extensively about...
So, you may have locked onto the underlying issue.
To be honest, that is not my original idea, that is the old concept of "authoritarian personality". Classics of psychology such as Erich Fromm, Adorno, and others have written extensively about this.
The general idea is that people with certain personality traits tend to admire and obey authoritarian leaders.
There are multiple ways to look at it - for example, I feel frustrated and defenseless, but I can identify with a "strong" leader who claims that he can fix every problem and restore order. Or... I feel confused and unable to understand the complexity of the world, but a "strong" leader offers black-and-white interpretations and separates my world into "us vs them" - now I feel like I know what is going on and the world makes sense. Some explanations use psychoanalytical concepts like "ego-defense". Some of these are a bit questionable, scientifically speaking, but I find that stuff fascinating - when I was at college, I spent a few semesters reading through Erich Fromm and others from that era around WW2 (when the topic of authoritarianism became really popular for obvious reasons). I wish I had the time to re-read at least some of it.
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it is either rational or true. Here's a Marquette law poll back in 2022 that found 1/3 of Americans and 3/5 of Republicans thought Trump...
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it is either rational or true. Here's a Marquette law poll back in 2022 that found 1/3 of Americans and 3/5 of Republicans thought Trump did not keep top secret and other classified material or national security documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago.
Thing is... Trump himself wasn't even making this argument. He was arguing publicly that he had every right to possess those documents. So how do so many Americans get the facts so wrong? This speaks to a fundamental disconnect where a huge portion of the American public have false beliefs on basic facts and are regularly fed falsehoods rather than real news. I don't even want to get into the high number of Q-anon believers and their blood libel nonsense. It's pure poison.
Trump has killed satire. The fact that Republicans are rallying behind him and insisting he's done nothing wrong tells us that they'd instigate an armed insurrection and bring America into a...
Trump has killed satire. The fact that Republicans are rallying behind him and insisting he's done nothing wrong tells us that they'd instigate an armed insurrection and bring America into a Fascist dictatorship in a heartbeat, now that they realised somebody could largely get away with it.
Imagine if a figure less polarizing than Trump made that Jan 6th call. Imagine if we had an electoral result as close as Gore vs Bush that left many more scratching their heads.
Gore vs bush was the precursor, the Brooks Brothers riot shut down the recount in Miami and led to bush winning election. Many of the demonstrators were republican staffers.
Gore vs bush was the precursor, the Brooks Brothers riot shut down the recount in Miami and led to bush winning election. Many of the demonstrators were republican staffers.
He's at the point now where he really doesn't have any other options other than he has to run for President. If he doesn't, he's most likely "screwed", as in he'll probably be under house arrest...
He's at the point now where he really doesn't have any other options other than he has to run for President. If he doesn't, he's most likely "screwed", as in he'll probably be under house arrest for the rest of his life. Obviously to an important billionaire businessman doing business things, that's basically like torture. So he has to run because that's the only way he'll "beat the charges", by becoming President-for-life and corrupting the system. It's a huge test for our government and society in general in how we'll respond to this. Previous political norms, those sort of unspoken "gentlemen's agreements" that politicians would vaguely play by the rules just don't work in this situation. Trump is so far removed from any of that and so self-centered that there's no way he was ever going to respect any of that, plus he has absolutely no shame.
Really though, this won't be the first time the Republicans try to do it, if anything they'll get better at it the longer they're allowed to operate like this. Even if Trump had a heart attack tomorrow on 8/3/23 at 3:12pm and fell over dead, this wouldn't be the end of it. They've essentially become an extremist insurgent group, bent on overthrowing the government. The longer we tolerate their antics, the worse they'll get. Given though that half the voting population still supports them through all of this doesn't bode well for the country.
There are still SOME checks and balances in the Whitehouse. Another orange man, or even another republican in general, at this point will do everything they can to turn our country into a fascist...
There are still SOME checks and balances in the Whitehouse.
Another orange man, or even another republican in general, at this point will do everything they can to turn our country into a fascist state.
I suppose my thoughts on that are a similar, plus some extra cynicism… That so many feel the same way, that he will not be held accountable if convicted of a crime, along with many other recent...
I suppose my thoughts on that are a similar, plus some extra cynicism…
That so many feel the same way, that he will not be held accountable if convicted of a crime, along with many other recent events, seems to speak to a general lack of confidence in our judicial - and maybe entire democratic - process.
I’m also skeptical of a meaningful outcome, and terrified of a possible future in which he is elected again.
But let’s be honest: no former President will be jailed, barred from election, or disenfranchised. No matter the crime, guilt, conviction. Even one who has created a dangerous and divided nation.
Apparently, except maybe revolutionaries, no one planned for a crisis of our entire system of government: no judicial oversight, unchecked presidential powers, and a generally disinterested or incompetent legislature.
true, it's rare to take someone that age who's not in jail, and put them in jail. but... An elderly woman in prison is losing her memory. Why won’t California release her? Nothing But Time:...
It's rare to jail folks approaching their 80s for nonviolent crimes regardless.
true, it's rare to take someone that age who's not in jail, and put them in jail. but...
Prison guards stood by as Janet Carter, 69, sat in her wheelchair and tried to explain the gaps in her memory. It was May 2022 and her third time appearing before the California parole board, which would decide whether to free her after 25 years.
“I can’t remember a whole lot of stuff,” she said when a commissioner asked why she couldn’t articulate what she’d learned in prison programs. Her lawyer later pointed to a doctor’s report that documented some causes: Parkinson’s disease, early dementia, a neurocognitive disorder, chemotherapy and a head injury.
The Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles last week denied medical parole to Leola Harris, 71, who uses a wheelchair, relies on dialysis, and is suffering from end stage renal disease, among other life-threatening medical conditions.
The board allotted six minutes to considering whether Ms. Harris had been adequately punished for the 2001 killing of Lennell Norris, an unhoused man she had befriended, when he entered her home, and whether Ms. Harris, who had no prior criminal history, could be released with no threat to public safety after 19 years in prison as a model prisoner.
there's two legal systems in this country, one for the rich & powerful, and one for everyone else (just like Jesus and the other Founding Fathers intended)
if Trump were 57 instead of 77 years old, I don't think his chance of seeing a jail cell would be any higher. people with his level of wealth and power don't go to jail, regardless of age.
I'm not quite as cynical here though you bring up good points that our justice system is two-tiered in many ways. Even that being the case, a lot of Trump's allies have been convicted of crimes...
I'm not quite as cynical here though you bring up good points that our justice system is two-tiered in many ways. Even that being the case, a lot of Trump's allies have been convicted of crimes and even served prison time. Manafort before receiving his pardon was imprisoned for almost 2 years. Stone would have served prison time has he also not been pardoned. The 5-6 unindicted co-conspirators on these latest January 6th charges are in real legal jeopardy here as well.
the cases of Manafort and Stone actually kind of underline my point, I think Manafort: and that's before you get to the long section detailing what he did in Ukraine Stone is similar, of course,...
Manafort before receiving his pardon was imprisoned for almost 2 years. Stone would have served prison time has he also not been pardoned.
the cases of Manafort and Stone actually kind of underline my point, I think
In 1985, Manafort's firm, BMSK, signed a $600,000 contract with Jonas Savimbi, the leader of the Angolan rebel group UNITA, to refurbish Savimbi's image in Washington and secure financial support on the basis of his anti-communism stance. BMSK arranged for Savimbi to attend events at the American Enterprise Institute (where Jeane Kirkpatrick gave him a laudatory introduction), The Heritage Foundation, and Freedom House; in the wake of the campaign, Congress approved hundreds of millions of dollars in covert American aid to Savimbi's group.
Between June 1984 and June 1986, Manafort was a FARA-registered lobbyist for Saudi Arabia. The Reagan Administration refused to grant Manafort a waiver from federal statutes prohibiting public officials from acting as foreign agents; Manafort resigned his directorship at OPIC in May 1986. An investigation by the Department of Justice found 18 lobbying-related activities that were not reported in FARA filings, including lobbying on behalf of The Bahamas and Saint Lucia.
His firm also lobbied on behalf of the governments of the Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya (earning between $660,000 and $750,000 each year between 1991 and 1993), and Nigeria ($1 million in 1991). These activities led Manafort's firm to be listed amongst the top five lobbying firms receiving money from human-rights abusing regimes in the Center for Public Integrity report "The Torturers' Lobby".
Manafort wrote the campaign strategy for Édouard Balladur in the 1995 French elections, and was paid indirectly. The money, at least $200,000, was transferred to him through his friend, Lebanese arms-dealer Abdul Rahman al-Assir, from middle-men fees paid for arranging the sale of three French Agosta-class submarines to Pakistan, in a scandal known as the Karachi affair.
Manafort received $700,000 from the Kashmiri American Council between 1990 and 1994, supposedly to promote the plight of the Kashmiri people. However, an FBI investigation revealed the money was actually from Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agency as part of a disinformation operation to divert attention from terrorism.
In the late 1980s, Manafort was criticized for using his connections at HUD to ensure funding for a $43 million rehabilitation of dilapidated housing in Seabrook, New Jersey. Manafort's firm received a $326,000 fee for its work in getting HUD approval of the grant, largely through personal influence with Deborah Gore Dean, an executive assistant to former HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce.
and that's before you get to the long section detailing what he did in Ukraine
Stone is similar, of course, starting his career as one of Nixon's hired goons
people talk about "white collar crime" but there's a level above that, of "wealthy, politically-connected white guy crime"
Stone and Manafort both got away with doing that sort of crime for decades, before suffering any consequences.
I think the most interesting thing about the indictment, and I'm not being original here, is the conspiracy against rights charge. You can read the statute here:...
I think the most interesting thing about the indictment, and I'm not being original here, is the conspiracy against rights charge. You can read the statute here:
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I think there's basically zero chance Trump actually faces the death penalty here, but it's kinda nuts that there's even an iota of a possibility here. The violence on January 6th certainly involved attempts to kidnap or kill as well as actual deaths. There is indeed a section of Jack Smith's indictment that covers how Trump both facilitated the violence as well as his attempts to profit from it.
The Defendant’s Exploitation of the Violence and Chaos at the Capitol
The legal theory of how "conspiracy against rights" applies is not elaborated in too much detail in the document, but rather it states:
COUNT FOUR
(Conspiracy Against Rights—18 U.S.C. § 241)
The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.
From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the
District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant,
DONALD J. TRUMP,
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241)
More detail https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-2020-election-probe-08-01-23/index.html https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-66248859...
I was just reading this npr article https://www.npr.org/live-updates/trump-grand-jury-indictment-jan-6#more-than-1-000-people-have-been-arrested-in-connection-with-jan-6 saying that the average...
You can visit r/capitolconsequences for much more granular detail about charges and sentencing. If they are mixing people who were charged with simple trespassing, with people who were charged...
You can visit r/capitolconsequences for much more granular detail about charges and sentencing. If they are mixing people who were charged with simple trespassing, with people who were charged with obstructing a proceeding, with people who were charged with violent crimes or rioting, that can lead to a lower average. Also a lot of defendants took plea deals. I've seen many 5 year sentences following that subreddit.
Them seeking a speedy trial is interesting, but not sure if it means anything. I'd guess that the defense has some ability to postpone no matter what (at least when people who can afford hyper...
Them seeking a speedy trial is interesting, but not sure if it means anything. I'd guess that the defense has some ability to postpone no matter what (at least when people who can afford hyper expensive council are involved), and I doubt they're going to want to "just get this one over with"
Both the defense and the people have a right to a speedy trial. The defense can only postpone with genuine reasons. This case will be much harder to postpone than the documents case.
Both the defense and the people have a right to a speedy trial.
The defense can only postpone with genuine reasons. This case will be much harder to postpone than the documents case.
A recent New York Times/Siena College poll shows that 71% of likely Republican voters think that Donald Trump has not committed any serious federal crimes. I can't help but feel that this...
Zero percent — not a single one of the 319 respondents in this MAGA category — said he had committed serious federal crimes. A mere 2 percent said he “did something wrong” in his handling of classified documents. More than 90 percent said Republicans needed to stand behind him in the face of the investigations.
I can't help but feel that this indictment will only increase support of Trump [among likely Republican voters], not decrease it.
Upshot analyzed the crosstabs and separated the likely Republican voters into three groups: a MAGA base (37%), persuadable voters (37%), and those not open to Trump (25%). The group of persuadable voters seem to have views much more similar to the MAGA base than to those not open to Trump; they're more likely to say that "American is in danger of failing", more likely to oppose aid to Ukraine, and more likely to say they support punishing "woke businesses." The likelihood of a Trump nomination seems very high to me.
Trump's going to win the nomination, so this isn't too important imo. The rest of the Republican field are wasting their time, money and credibility and coming across as fools with just a few...
I can't help but feel that this indictment will only increase support of Trump [among likely Republican voters], not decrease it.
Trump's going to win the nomination, so this isn't too important imo. The rest of the Republican field are wasting their time, money and credibility and coming across as fools with just a few exceptions. The important bit is these indictments have had small but nonzero negative effects on his support with independent voters... and those people are essential in the general election.
Can someone explain how you can face such indictments and not be remanded in custody? The man was given bail and has gone out and issued a threat to the court and witnesses today... You can...
Can someone explain how you can face such indictments and not be remanded in custody?
The man was given bail and has gone out and issued a threat to the court and witnesses today...
You can seriously be charged on indictment for mega-crime stuff like "Conspiracy to defraud the US" and not be held pre-trial?
I think the idea is that he's not a flight risk. He certainly has the ability to flee, but it would be disastrous for his position as well as his political prospects. Even if that weren't the...
I think the idea is that he's not a flight risk. He certainly has the ability to flee, but it would be disastrous for his position as well as his political prospects. Even if that weren't the case, he has a Secret Service detail that could conceivably be used to track his movements and remand him if necessary.
The issue is that he's claiming First Amendment protections for his actions. It behooves the state to grant him latitude in his recognizance because he's claiming political persecution. I think the idea is that playing by the book and granting him the benefit of the doubt will underscore any eventual conviction. The problem with that is that he's being accused of fomenting sedition, or something very close to it. He has the ability to cause a great deal of turmoil in the meantime. It's ultimately a gamble by the state that the outcome will outweigh the harm he may cause in the interim; I'm not sure that's valid, but I don't really see much of an alternative.
He's a terror risk... I mean to just let the guy go on bail without placing any restrictions on his ability to use electronic devices etc... I really struggle to see how the USA comes out of this...
He's a terror risk... I mean to just let the guy go on bail without placing any restrictions on his ability to use electronic devices etc...
I really struggle to see how the USA comes out of this intact, he is threatening your courts, he's threatening judges and witnesses and he is very obviously dangerous with a proven track record of inciting political violence.
The guy needs to be treated as anyone else accused of such things would be: concrete box, no contact, basic rights.
Which is an easy argument to make about any political opponent and thus not going to be invoked lightly. He's absolutely guilty but there is no way looking at relevant case law there was any...
He's a terror risk... I mean to just let the guy go on bail without placing any restrictions on his ability to use electronic devices etc...
Which is an easy argument to make about any political opponent and thus not going to be invoked lightly.
He's absolutely guilty but there is no way looking at relevant case law there was any chance they'd deny bail. I don't think it even tracks if you look at "similar" (as much as they can be) cases. In general denying bail is supposed to be extremely rare and reserved, and while the whole concept is flawed, there's no way they could argue it successfully here.
As far as I'm aware attempted coups aren't exactly a common feature of American politics... I'm just blown away by the kid gloves treatment of this guy. He should be in a concrete box until his...
Which is an easy argument to make about any political opponent
As far as I'm aware attempted coups aren't exactly a common feature of American politics...
I'm just blown away by the kid gloves treatment of this guy. He should be in a concrete box until his trial is ready to proceed, he's a genuine and proven threat to your country and the way the USA responded in the recent past to genuine threats is not how they are responding now.
Slight correction: they haven't been a common feature up to now. As dangerous as Trump is, it's my feeling that the angry people behind him are pretty dangerous too. We're going to see this shit...
As far as I'm aware attempted coups aren't exactly a common feature of American politics...
Slight correction: they haven't been a common feature up to now. As dangerous as Trump is, it's my feeling that the angry people behind him are pretty dangerous too. We're going to see this shit again soon if he isn't put away for good. I want them to be as careful as they can in making that happen.
I'm not American so I've got no important opinions here. But this is all just so he can't participate in the elections, right? Or can you be an electoral candidate in jail?
I'm not American so I've got no important opinions here. But this is all just so he can't participate in the elections, right? Or can you be an electoral candidate in jail?
No, this is because he almost certainly committed the crimes alleged. Yes. In fact, the Constitution doesn't forbid someone from being President while incarcerated. Here are the only requirements:...
But this is all just so he can't participate in the elections, right?
No, this is because he almost certainly committed the crimes alleged.
Or can you be an electoral candidate in jail?
Yes. In fact, the Constitution doesn't forbid someone from being President while incarcerated. Here are the only requirements:
Must be a natural born citizen of the US (Article II, Section 1)
Must be at least 35 years old (Article II, Section 1)
Must have been a resident in the US for at least 3 years (Article II, Section 1)
May not have exceeded their term limits (22nd Amendment)
There are some additional requirements that are more technical but have never been used to bar someone from holding the Presidency.
May not have been disqualified to hold office following a vote of impeachment (Article I, Section 3)
May not have been disqualified for leading a rebellion against the US (14th Amendment)
Possibly his role in Jan 6 could could disqualify him from being President per the last requirement (especially in light of the new charges), but it's an untested legal theory.
You should care.... And no, this isn't "To keep him from being elected" that would just be a benefit. He's a criminal. He tried to subvert the democratic process. He harassed and threatened state...
You should care....
And no, this isn't "To keep him from being elected" that would just be a benefit.
He's a criminal. He tried to subvert the democratic process. He harassed and threatened state governments to "Find votes". He held top secret information in an insecure area, against what the law says, and then LIED about it and tried to cover up the evidence.
Trump is a career criminal. These charges aren't some kind of deterrence from keeping him out of office. They are legitimate charges that if anyone other than Trump were charged with, they would be sitting in a concrete cell and would likely never breathe free air again.
But this asshole goes in his ravings about how it's a witch hunt, because of a corrupt Department if Justice and democrats.
It's kind of funny, kind of sad that he's actually right about the system being biased, but in this case it's actually biased IN HIS FAVOR. We've seen so many instances of the "small folk" doing a...
It's kind of funny, kind of sad that he's actually right about the system being biased, but in this case it's actually biased IN HIS FAVOR. We've seen so many instances of the "small folk" doing a fraction of what he's done and getting not just the book, but the whole library thrown at them. Meanwhile, Trump commits multiple blatant crimes, does everything he can to lie and cover it up, potentially gave, sold, or lost classified documents to our enemies (or just anyone that was around), incites violence, threatens public officials, and he's still walking around free and has an actual shot at the Presidency again. It's complete madness, no, THIS IS SPARTA!
My limited understanding is that while jail itself can’t stop you – Eugene Debbs famously ran for president from prison, once – many charges that can land you there do disqualify you from holding...
My limited understanding is that while jail itself can’t stop you – Eugene Debbs famously ran for president from prison, once – many charges that can land you there do disqualify you from holding public office.
In Debs' case he was more of a political prisoner. I can't remember if it was for protesting WWI or for being held in contempt for refusing court injunctions during a strike (he did short stints...
In Debs' case he was more of a political prisoner. I can't remember if it was for protesting WWI or for being held in contempt for refusing court injunctions during a strike (he did short stints in jail for both) so I think it wouldn't be crazy for the previous candidate to pardon them so they could serve if it came to that. In Trump's case such a pardon would be tantamount to a coup on its own. Insurrection is the most serious crime you can commit against a state.
There are laws against being an American president that were broken when he took that position the last time. Several issues that made him ineligible, but it didn't seem to ever stop anything that...
There are laws against being an American president that were broken when he took that position the last time. Several issues that made him ineligible, but it didn't seem to ever stop anything that went on.
They are laws that apply still, and now there is also how he hasn't been a president for several years. They cannot again be president of someone else has been a president for two or more years in the meantime, or something like that.
But seen from the outside, I reckon he's going to just end up in the ovalofoce once more.
Can you elaborate? He did many, many illegal things, but as far as I know none of them (as of January 2017) made him ineligible to be president. From @psi's comment: When Trump took office in...
There are laws against being an American president that were broken when he took that position the last time. Several issues that made him ineligible
Can you elaborate? He did many, many illegal things, but as far as I know none of them (as of January 2017) made him ineligible to be president.
Must be a natural born citizen of the US (Article II, Section 1)
Must be at least 35 years old (Article II, Section 1)
Must have been a resident in the US for at least 3 years (Article II, Section 1)
May not have exceeded their term limits (22nd Amendment)
There are some additional requirements that are more technical but have never been used to bar someone from holding the Presidency.
May not have been disqualified to hold office following a vote of impeachment (Article I, Section 3)
May not have been disqualified for leading a rebellion against the US (14th Amendment)
When Trump took office in 2017, he met all the requirements necessary to be president. Hypothetically he may be disqualified in 2024. It is very much the case in the US that criminals are eligible to hold presidential office (outside of those who lead rebellions or are convicted from impeachment hearings-- note that Trump was impeached twice but not convicted, so as of August 1, 2023 he is still technically eligible to be president).
As far as I am aware, a person cannot have financial ties/debt to other countries, yet he had, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And as for this time around, there is also the reason that if...
As far as I am aware, a person cannot have financial ties/debt to other countries, yet he had, in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
And as for this time around, there is also the reason that if someone that has already been president, they cannot take that office again if someone else has held the position for I think 2 or 3 years since the last time they were president.
I am not well versed enough with US laws to find the relevant texts, but read this in newspapers both the last time and this.
However, I also don't think it matters and that he will end up president again.
Which quite frankly sucks. I have no mature, eloquent language that explains it better. Because it normalizes and boosts absolutely atrocious behaviour in both politics and everyday behaviour in people around the world.
Just seeing that someone like that runs the show in the biggest Western powerhouse has derailed public behaviour so much as it is.
But doesn't the last sentence of your quote there say that if someone else has been president for more than two years since they were the president, they cannot become president again?
But doesn't the last sentence of your quote there say that if someone else has been president for more than two years since they were the president, they cannot become president again?
It means that if you serve less than a full term (e.g., you were Vice President, the President resigned, and you became President), then for the purpose of the 22nd Amendment you would round up to...
It means that if you serve less than a full term (e.g., you were Vice President, the President resigned, and you became President), then for the purpose of the 22nd Amendment you would round up to 1 term if you were the acting President for more than 2 years, but you would round down to 0 terms otherwise.
Or to put it more succinctly, the 2 years is referring to is just defining how long someone has to serve in order for it to "count" as one of the 2-term maximum. Part of the context of that...
Or to put it more succinctly, the 2 years is referring to is just defining how long someone has to serve in order for it to "count" as one of the 2-term maximum.
Part of the context of that amendment was that the president at the time (FDR) was very popular and had been elected four times, but towards the end his health started deteriorating. This was partly a check against that happening in the future, so the goal was to establish a range of acceptable min/max, not disqualify someone generally.
I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a new amendment that adds a "maximum age" limit.
Along those lines, I feel like we’ve all gotten too acquainted with the old curse, “May you live in interesting times.” I would happily welcome some boring times now.
Along those lines, I feel like we’ve all gotten too acquainted with the old curse, “May you live in interesting times.”
May my children live in dull, boring times. Which of course usually causes its own issues of complacency, but still. Shits been crazy my entire adult life and I'm ready for a break in the insanity.
May my children live in dull, boring times. Which of course usually causes its own issues of complacency, but still. Shits been crazy my entire adult life and I'm ready for a break in the insanity.
What would happen, hypothetically, if he were to do that, and win? Presumably he wouldn’t just automatically walk free. I suppose he’d try to pardon himself, but even if that worked what would the...
What would happen, hypothetically, if he were to do that, and win? Presumably he wouldn’t just automatically walk free. I suppose he’d try to pardon himself, but even if that worked what would the preceding events look like, of inauguration, forming a cabinet, and so on, while incarcerated?
Gonna be treating this thread as a megathread, hope y'all don't mind.
I was interested in the free speech defense, so I did some research on it. I have 0 legal background, so I'm not entirely sure if I've interpreted everything correctly, and am totally open to correction.
TLDR: It doesn't seem like Trump has anywhere to hide behind the First Amendment.
The free speech argument is dependent on a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio which asserted that unless the speech was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," then the speech is protected. In other words, simply advocating for an illegal or harmful action can still be protected under the First Amendment.
Jay Sterling Silver indicates a couple ways Trump's language during the Jan 6 insurrection could be considered protected free speech, two of which are somewhat dependent on the politics of the judges themselves.
Source: Silver, J. S. (2022). Thompson v. Trump: Lost in the Funhouse of Brandenburg. Iowa L. Rev. Online, 107, 151. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/volume-107-articles-essays/volume-107-articles/2
First, intent. Trump does make comments asking for peaceful protest.
Second, the fact that Republicans insist to characterize the insurrection as "legitimate political discourse." While this may seem to be a bald-faced lie,
Third, it may be that Trump's speech did not actually incite the violence if the insurrectionists were already committed to the violence.
However, J. S. Silver notes that criminal law does still sanction intention, even if harm was not committed. In addition, there are tweets and other evidence to suggest that certain rioters explicitly were swayed by Trump's speech.
In determining if Trump's speech can be considered incitement, Joshua Azriel and Jeff DeWitt state:
Source: Joshua Azriel, Ph. D. & Jeff DeWitt, Ph.D. (2022). “We Fight Like Hell”: Applying Brandenburg to Trump’s Speech Surrounding the U.S. Capitol Siege. The Criminal Law Practitioner. https://www.crimlawpractitioner.org/post/we-fight-like-hell-applying-brandenburg-to-trump-s-speech-surrounding-the-u-s-capitol-siege
Alan Z. Rozenshtein & Jed Handelsman Shugerman state that political speech should be given more protections, not less. "Inflammatory speech is (regrettably) common across the political spectrum," and should not necessarily be prosecuted. The fact that the electoral count certification is so important means that more extreme speech could be considered expected—"A First Amendment that only protects harmless, fringe movements that have no political influence is hardly worth its reputation as a core safeguard of liberty and democracy."
However, Rozenshtein and Shugerman still conclude that Trump's overt acts and attempts to join the march to the Capitol could meet the Brandenburg Test "without seakening the First Amendment's protections for inflammatory political speech."
Source: Rozenshtein, Alan Z. and Shugerman, Jed H., January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Solution (January 10, 2023). 37 Constitutional Commentary (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4256652
Am I wrong to feel like, at the very least, Conspiracy to Obstruct is a slam dunk case?
The entire free speech argument is a red herring. They're not prosecuting him for inciting the mob on January 6th, in fact the indictment explicitly says he has a constitutional right to lie about the election. They're prosecuting him for engaging in a deliberate conspiracy to overturn the results, specifically by pressuring state and federal officials, ginning up a sham Justice Department investigation, and appointing fake electors.
You can believe and claim that Bank of America is run by lizard people all you want, it doesn't give you the right to commit check fraud.
You might enjoy Legal Eagle's videos as he has converted this issue extensively. His most recent was just posted here and covers this exact subject:
https://youtu.be/SbIhNmoZLJQ
I will see what else I find to respond, but this article which I posted as it's own thread, might help. https://popehat.substack.com/p/people-are-lying-to-you-about-the
Also this. https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/02/trump-lied-and-mike-pence-almost-died/
i will see what else I find.
Haha, I was just reading that from your post! When I read "Sometimes these will be misstatements out of carelessness (I’m occasionally guilty on that) or ignorance" I was sort of wondering if that was what I was doing since I really don't have any background in law!
Anyway, I found it interesting that the articles I read don't seem to focus too heavily on the lies (as the National Review board op-ed seems to do). The lies are simply used to build context around intent. Instead, there seems to be far more focus on whether or not the speech could be considered to produce imminent harm.
The National Review board op-ed says:
...But isn't that exactly what Conspiracy to Obstruct is? The argument specifically is that Trump "did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators... to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote" (from the official indictment).
I found it kind of funny that the dissenting National Review op-ed points this out:
The only thing I would add is that there looks to me to be a lot of references in the indictment to Trump efforts to obstruct the certification that were earlier than the day of the riot. Not downstream effects but upstream. There were repeated and widespread attempts to find fake votes, certify fake electors, convince politicians including Mike Pence to fail to do their duty and certify the election. The riot is not needed to convict imho. Trump was the kingpin of a massive nationwide undertaking to obstruct the certification of the vote.
And yet there are people who will still vote for him. It’s insanity.
Peeking at /r/conservative hurt my soul. Literally saw a comment that said “Every indictment he gets just makes me want to vote for him more”.
We live in absurd times.
As he himself said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." Ain't that the truth... after years of getting away with pretty much anything, the cynic in me doubts he will ever be held accountable for anything. Even if he is imprisoned, his cultist followers will never turn on him, and will probably just turn it into more fuel for the fire.
The biggest problem is that no one they trust has told them that he has done anything wrong.
And they have decided that no one who would tell them that is anyone they should trust.
Truly, we live in a post-truth world.
There are people out there who would spitefully crap their pants if they thought a suspected liberal might have to smell it.
I'm not really sure how people get that far gone.
Part of the problem is that they are in a truth desert because they get all their news from fox and facebook and talk radio.
The other part of the problem is that they kind of know that and don’t care.
I don't see enough recognition that Trump has coopted the spirit (and probably a lot of fanbase) of "Pro Wrestling". He has turned his political opponents into the fictional "bad guys" in a Westlemania tournament and many of his supporters don't care about the contextual facts; they just want to see people rumble and see the bad guys get body-slammed.
Good analogy! They even have terms for the illusion of the wrestling act: kayfabe. There are wrestlers who are always in character and never break the illusion (Macho Man). The people who fall for kayfabe are the "marks" and the ones who know and just love the show are the "smarks" or just "smarts". All works just as well in politics, as you've said they even got "faces" and "heels" (good and bad guys).
Trump never breaks character, and when he enters the ring they cheer for him and boo whoever enters against him. Not because they understand the stakes, but because they want a show and their guy to "win".
Oh yeah (Macho Man voice), that “kayfabe” word unlocked a lot of search results for me. Maybe there is more on this topic than I thought.
For example, an article in Political Studies Review:
Kayfabe, Smartdom and Marking Out: Can Pro- Wrestling Help Us Understand Donald Trump?
By David S Moon
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1478929920963827
So glad politics is being discussed in this context, because it fits so well. The reality is, as mentioned above, that conservative media has been playing this game so well, and their propaganda is being eaten up uncritically that has brought us to this moment. As Jon Stewart said right to Tucker Carlson's face: You're hurting us.
This is revolution podcast is in the final stretch of producing a documentary about this exact thing. They're looking to fund the last piece and also a theater tour where they screen the documentary and then do a Q&A after.
How did I not know about this concept? Thank you!
I wanted to learn a bit more and found a YouTube series How Politics Became Pro Wrestling that is interesting, also an article by Eric R. Weinstein.
Robert Evans discusses this at some length in his Behind the Bastards series on Vince McMahon. He claims that without McMahon, a longtime "friend" of Trump's (insofar as narcissists can be friends with each other), we likely wouldn't have Trump as a political force. Trump's whole political persona maps closely to the pro wrestler pattern, even down to how there's always an excuse for why the face (in this case Trump, somehow) loses that involves dirty dealing on the part of the heels (the Democratic Deep State).
The connection between the two goes beyond rhetorical similarities as well. McMahon's wife also served as an adviser during Trump's administration, though in what capacity I don't presently recall.
She was like, secretary of small businesses or something.
Anyway, without VKM and Jack Welch we wouldn't have had President Trump. Now there's an alternate history to ruminate on.
I'm very curious where you get your news from that's so much better...
Simply being exposed to other sources makes you question things. It brings awareness.
This is true-- I've learned so much from diversifying my sources. My underlying value system is still the same and I haven't stopped being a leftist, but it's allowed me to view situations with a different lens and to understand them on a more nuanced level. Nothing's as black and white as some people seem to think it is.
To answer in earnest, we had a post on Tildes recently about healthier news sources that you might find useful. :)
It’s hard to do worse than the three they mentioned honestly. RT might be the only thing in a similar league.
Epoch Times?
Touché
Others have already given good replies, but I'll give some specific sources I go to.
Some mixture of Reuters, AP, and PBS Newshour does a good job of covering international and US news pretty comprehensively. Add in a local paper and a local NPR station, and I think you've got a fair idea of what's going on nearby and globally.
Likewise, while Reuters and AP skew much more intentionally neutral, PBS Newshour has segments that intentionally cover political viewpoints, to give a diversity of thought some exposure. There's always great back and forth between Capehart and Abernathy, for instance.
Not who you were talking to, but I really enjoy https://ground.news/ . They have AI generated summaries of news stories based on bais and break down which political biases are talking about what news.
That is an interesting website, thanks for sharing.
Unfortunate you need to subscribe to see the factuality assessment of some stories though, that feels like a pretty critical part to paywall.
Watching this all unfold in real time is surreal. It's like going to see a magician, where the magician tells you exactly what he is going to do then proceeds to fumble his way through the trick. Then when you turn your head to say how bad it was you see that half the crowd is absolutely mystified.
This is not in just US you can see similar popularity of populist alt right in other countries. Strangely they seem for some reason friendly with Kremlin.
Russia might be doing badly militarily in Ukraine, but they are still very good at using disinformation to make people in other countries do what they want.
Sadly, this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened in the US. Have you heard Rachel Maddow's podcasts Ultra and Bag Man? They cover the history of right-wing fascism in the 1940s and a somewhat similar "cult" around, of all people, Spiro Agnew around the time of Watergate. It is frightening just how far back these movements stretch. They have been working for decades to infiltrate the government, completely undo the New Deal, and turn this place into even more of a dystopian hellscape than it already is.
I found myself in a position of having no choice but to visit a Walmart two days ago (Sunday). I realized that despite any generic Walmart being one of my favorite places to watch people, it also made me realize that these people have a right to vote, and do.
I've known dumb people who stumble their way into good choices, so that makes me hopeful.
While dumb people don't worry me too much, self-centered people with weak egos do. Unfortunately I think there are a few too many of those people around.
There's a maintenance guy that I know who I hire to do work around my house.
He's the sweetest guy you'd ever meet. If anything, I could take advantage of him (he low-balls his hourly wage that he asks for and low-balls the amount of time that it takes him to do work for me)--wife and I are constantly telling him stuff like, "No. you worked more than x hours. Don't short-change yourself.".
It astounds me that he's a HUGE Trump fan.
I say this mostly because Trump is all about being mean spirited. And this guy is all about being fair and kind. If anything, he's unfair to himself.
The other Trump supporters I know are aligned with Trump mentally ("be mean spirited ... fuck the other guy before he fucks you ... who cares, as long as the liberals are upset ... etc.")
But this guy? Makes no sense to me.
Psychologically healthy people are fair and kind to themselves as well. What you describe ("he low-balls his hourly wage that he asks for and low-balls the amount of time that it takes him to do work for me") does not sound like kindness, it sounds like a lack of healthy assertiveness. I would say people like that admire strongmen pretty often.
And that "kindness" might be superficial - your description reminded me of one ex-colleague of mine, always nice, always ready to help, even for free in his spare time... but when you looked closer, you discovered his Facebook posts with hateful conspiracy theories and angry outbursts and even at work, some kind of accumulated anger sometimes bubbled up seemingly out of nowhere - but always anger at someone else; like... he would be telling you how pissed off he is because his boss told him this or that, but when he talked to his boss, he always said that he was happy in the company and had nothing to complain about.
Interesting comment. I asked him once why he supported Trump and he said something to the effect of "We need someone strong to prevent other countries from pushing us around."
So, you may have locked onto the underlying issue.
That being said, he's a good egg (I've even seen his Facebook account. Ha!).
To be honest, that is not my original idea, that is the old concept of "authoritarian personality". Classics of psychology such as Erich Fromm, Adorno, and others have written extensively about this.
The general idea is that people with certain personality traits tend to admire and obey authoritarian leaders.
There are multiple ways to look at it - for example, I feel frustrated and defenseless, but I can identify with a "strong" leader who claims that he can fix every problem and restore order. Or... I feel confused and unable to understand the complexity of the world, but a "strong" leader offers black-and-white interpretations and separates my world into "us vs them" - now I feel like I know what is going on and the world makes sense. Some explanations use psychoanalytical concepts like "ego-defense". Some of these are a bit questionable, scientifically speaking, but I find that stuff fascinating - when I was at college, I spent a few semesters reading through Erich Fromm and others from that era around WW2 (when the topic of authoritarianism became really popular for obvious reasons). I wish I had the time to re-read at least some of it.
I admit that I tend to see psychoanalytical concepts everywhere... but it is really hard not to see projection in this one.
60M people. Perhaps there's a fundamental disagreement between what you see, or want to see and what a completely different demographic does.
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it is either rational or true. Here's a Marquette law poll back in 2022 that found 1/3 of Americans and 3/5 of Republicans thought Trump did not keep top secret and other classified material or national security documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago.
Thing is... Trump himself wasn't even making this argument. He was arguing publicly that he had every right to possess those documents. So how do so many Americans get the facts so wrong? This speaks to a fundamental disconnect where a huge portion of the American public have false beliefs on basic facts and are regularly fed falsehoods rather than real news. I don't even want to get into the high number of Q-anon believers and their blood libel nonsense. It's pure poison.
Trump has killed satire. The fact that Republicans are rallying behind him and insisting he's done nothing wrong tells us that they'd instigate an armed insurrection and bring America into a Fascist dictatorship in a heartbeat, now that they realised somebody could largely get away with it.
Imagine if a figure less polarizing than Trump made that Jan 6th call. Imagine if we had an electoral result as close as Gore vs Bush that left many more scratching their heads.
We live in a fucked-up timeline.
Gore vs bush was the precursor, the Brooks Brothers riot shut down the recount in Miami and led to bush winning election. Many of the demonstrators were republican staffers.
Why do I get the feeling that absolutely nothing will come of this? The dude has never been held accountable for anything in his life.
He'd better see some repercussions because if he's allowed to become president again we will no longer have a country anymore.
He's at the point now where he really doesn't have any other options other than he has to run for President. If he doesn't, he's most likely "screwed", as in he'll probably be under house arrest for the rest of his life. Obviously to an important billionaire businessman doing business things, that's basically like torture. So he has to run because that's the only way he'll "beat the charges", by becoming President-for-life and corrupting the system. It's a huge test for our government and society in general in how we'll respond to this. Previous political norms, those sort of unspoken "gentlemen's agreements" that politicians would vaguely play by the rules just don't work in this situation. Trump is so far removed from any of that and so self-centered that there's no way he was ever going to respect any of that, plus he has absolutely no shame.
Really though, this won't be the first time the Republicans try to do it, if anything they'll get better at it the longer they're allowed to operate like this. Even if Trump had a heart attack tomorrow on 8/3/23 at 3:12pm and fell over dead, this wouldn't be the end of it. They've essentially become an extremist insurgent group, bent on overthrowing the government. The longer we tolerate their antics, the worse they'll get. Given though that half the voting population still supports them through all of this doesn't bode well for the country.
What makes you think we have a country now?
There are still SOME checks and balances in the Whitehouse.
Another orange man, or even another republican in general, at this point will do everything they can to turn our country into a fascist state.
I suppose my thoughts on that are a similar, plus some extra cynicism…
That so many feel the same way, that he will not be held accountable if convicted of a crime, along with many other recent events, seems to speak to a general lack of confidence in our judicial - and maybe entire democratic - process.
I’m also skeptical of a meaningful outcome, and terrified of a possible future in which he is elected again.
But let’s be honest: no former President will be jailed, barred from election, or disenfranchised. No matter the crime, guilt, conviction. Even one who has created a dangerous and divided nation.
Apparently, except maybe revolutionaries, no one planned for a crisis of our entire system of government: no judicial oversight, unchecked presidential powers, and a generally disinterested or incompetent legislature.
It's rare to jail folks approaching their 80s for nonviolent crimes regardless. On that basis alone, I'm skeptical he'd actually serve prison time.
true, it's rare to take someone that age who's not in jail, and put them in jail. but...
An elderly woman in prison is losing her memory. Why won’t California release her?
Nothing But Time: Elderly Americans Serving Life Without Parole
What one 74-year-old’s recent death in prison says about California’s elderly parole program.
Alabama Parole Board Denies Medical Parole for Dying 71-Year-Old Woman
there's two legal systems in this country, one for the rich & powerful, and one for everyone else (just like Jesus and the other Founding Fathers intended)
if Trump were 57 instead of 77 years old, I don't think his chance of seeing a jail cell would be any higher. people with his level of wealth and power don't go to jail, regardless of age.
I'm not quite as cynical here though you bring up good points that our justice system is two-tiered in many ways. Even that being the case, a lot of Trump's allies have been convicted of crimes and even served prison time. Manafort before receiving his pardon was imprisoned for almost 2 years. Stone would have served prison time has he also not been pardoned. The 5-6 unindicted co-conspirators on these latest January 6th charges are in real legal jeopardy here as well.
the cases of Manafort and Stone actually kind of underline my point, I think
Manafort:
and that's before you get to the long section detailing what he did in Ukraine
Stone is similar, of course, starting his career as one of Nixon's hired goons
people talk about "white collar crime" but there's a level above that, of "wealthy, politically-connected white guy crime"
Stone and Manafort both got away with doing that sort of crime for decades, before suffering any consequences.
I don't really got a comeback as you dismantled my argument. Thank you for the detailed reply!
I think the most interesting thing about the indictment, and I'm not being original here, is the conspiracy against rights charge. You can read the statute here:
But let me quote the potential punishment:
I think there's basically zero chance Trump actually faces the death penalty here, but it's kinda nuts that there's even an iota of a possibility here. The violence on January 6th certainly involved attempts to kidnap or kill as well as actual deaths. There is indeed a section of Jack Smith's indictment that covers how Trump both facilitated the violence as well as his attempts to profit from it.
Paragraphs 106 to 124 details:
The legal theory of how "conspiracy against rights" applies is not elaborated in too much detail in the document, but rather it states:
More detail https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-2020-election-probe-08-01-23/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-66248859
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/doj-trump-indictment-trump-coconspirators/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert
identifies five out of six alleged co-conspirators not named in the indictment
Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sydney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Chesebro
https://www.c-span.org/video/?529681-1/special-counsel-jack-smith-delivers-statement
Assigned to Obama appointed judge Chutkan
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4132196-trump-indictment-judge-tanya-chutkan/
https://www.caribbeannationalweekly.com/community-news/jamaican-judge-tanya-chutkan-will-preside-over-trump-case/
Funny how rich people get indicted and poor people get arrested.
I was just reading this npr article https://www.npr.org/live-updates/trump-grand-jury-indictment-jan-6#more-than-1-000-people-have-been-arrested-in-connection-with-jan-6 saying that the average sentence for people who stormed the capitol on jan6 has been 120 days. I don't have much faith there will be much effect even if the guy is convicted.
You can visit r/capitolconsequences for much more granular detail about charges and sentencing. If they are mixing people who were charged with simple trespassing, with people who were charged with obstructing a proceeding, with people who were charged with violent crimes or rioting, that can lead to a lower average. Also a lot of defendants took plea deals. I've seen many 5 year sentences following that subreddit.
Them seeking a speedy trial is interesting, but not sure if it means anything. I'd guess that the defense has some ability to postpone no matter what (at least when people who can afford hyper expensive council are involved), and I doubt they're going to want to "just get this one over with"
One of these trials is gonna need to start relatively quickly if they're going to get them all done!
They won't, and if Trump is reelected there will be a Constitutional Crisis when he tries to pardon himself.
If Trump is the candidate everyone opposed to him needs to organize and campaign actively against him. It's important.
Both the defense and the people have a right to a speedy trial.
The defense can only postpone with genuine reasons. This case will be much harder to postpone than the documents case.
A recent New York Times/Siena College poll shows that 71% of likely Republican voters think that Donald Trump has not committed any serious federal crimes.
I can't help but feel that this indictment will only increase support of Trump [among likely Republican voters], not decrease it.
Upshot analyzed the crosstabs and separated the likely Republican voters into three groups: a MAGA base (37%), persuadable voters (37%), and those not open to Trump (25%). The group of persuadable voters seem to have views much more similar to the MAGA base than to those not open to Trump; they're more likely to say that "American is in danger of failing", more likely to oppose aid to Ukraine, and more likely to say they support punishing "woke businesses." The likelihood of a Trump nomination seems very high to me.
Trump's going to win the nomination, so this isn't too important imo. The rest of the Republican field are wasting their time, money and credibility and coming across as fools with just a few exceptions. The important bit is these indictments have had small but nonzero negative effects on his support with independent voters... and those people are essential in the general election.
Can someone explain how you can face such indictments and not be remanded in custody?
The man was given bail and has gone out and issued a threat to the court and witnesses today...
You can seriously be charged on indictment for mega-crime stuff like "Conspiracy to defraud the US" and not be held pre-trial?
I think the idea is that he's not a flight risk. He certainly has the ability to flee, but it would be disastrous for his position as well as his political prospects. Even if that weren't the case, he has a Secret Service detail that could conceivably be used to track his movements and remand him if necessary.
The issue is that he's claiming First Amendment protections for his actions. It behooves the state to grant him latitude in his recognizance because he's claiming political persecution. I think the idea is that playing by the book and granting him the benefit of the doubt will underscore any eventual conviction. The problem with that is that he's being accused of fomenting sedition, or something very close to it. He has the ability to cause a great deal of turmoil in the meantime. It's ultimately a gamble by the state that the outcome will outweigh the harm he may cause in the interim; I'm not sure that's valid, but I don't really see much of an alternative.
He's a terror risk... I mean to just let the guy go on bail without placing any restrictions on his ability to use electronic devices etc...
I really struggle to see how the USA comes out of this intact, he is threatening your courts, he's threatening judges and witnesses and he is very obviously dangerous with a proven track record of inciting political violence.
The guy needs to be treated as anyone else accused of such things would be: concrete box, no contact, basic rights.
Which is an easy argument to make about any political opponent and thus not going to be invoked lightly.
He's absolutely guilty but there is no way looking at relevant case law there was any chance they'd deny bail. I don't think it even tracks if you look at "similar" (as much as they can be) cases. In general denying bail is supposed to be extremely rare and reserved, and while the whole concept is flawed, there's no way they could argue it successfully here.
As far as I'm aware attempted coups aren't exactly a common feature of American politics...
I'm just blown away by the kid gloves treatment of this guy. He should be in a concrete box until his trial is ready to proceed, he's a genuine and proven threat to your country and the way the USA responded in the recent past to genuine threats is not how they are responding now.
Slight correction: they haven't been a common feature up to now. As dangerous as Trump is, it's my feeling that the angry people behind him are pretty dangerous too. We're going to see this shit again soon if he isn't put away for good. I want them to be as careful as they can in making that happen.
Again treating this as a megathread. Here is a decent analysis of one of the statutes he is accused of violating
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/03/enforcement-acts-trump-00109622#:~:text=A%20post%2DCivil%20War%20statute,case%20against%20the%20former%20president.&text=Joshua%20Zeitz%2C%20a%20Politico%20Magazine,a%20Nation%20(May%202023).
If Trump Gets Convicted, Blame Ulysses S. Grant
A post-Civil War statute could make all the difference in the case against the former president.
I'm not American so I've got no important opinions here. But this is all just so he can't participate in the elections, right? Or can you be an electoral candidate in jail?
No, this is because he almost certainly committed the crimes alleged.
Yes. In fact, the Constitution doesn't forbid someone from being President while incarcerated. Here are the only requirements:
There are some additional requirements that are more technical but have never been used to bar someone from holding the Presidency.
Possibly his role in Jan 6 could could disqualify him from being President per the last requirement (especially in light of the new charges), but it's an untested legal theory.
You should care....
And no, this isn't "To keep him from being elected" that would just be a benefit.
He's a criminal. He tried to subvert the democratic process. He harassed and threatened state governments to "Find votes". He held top secret information in an insecure area, against what the law says, and then LIED about it and tried to cover up the evidence.
Trump is a career criminal. These charges aren't some kind of deterrence from keeping him out of office. They are legitimate charges that if anyone other than Trump were charged with, they would be sitting in a concrete cell and would likely never breathe free air again.
But this asshole goes in his ravings about how it's a witch hunt, because of a corrupt Department if Justice and democrats.
It's kind of funny, kind of sad that he's actually right about the system being biased, but in this case it's actually biased IN HIS FAVOR. We've seen so many instances of the "small folk" doing a fraction of what he's done and getting not just the book, but the whole library thrown at them. Meanwhile, Trump commits multiple blatant crimes, does everything he can to lie and cover it up, potentially gave, sold, or lost classified documents to our enemies (or just anyone that was around), incites violence, threatens public officials, and he's still walking around free and has an actual shot at the Presidency again. It's complete madness, no, THIS IS SPARTA!
Eugene Debs ran for president from prison.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
My limited understanding is that while jail itself can’t stop you – Eugene Debbs famously ran for president from prison, once – many charges that can land you there do disqualify you from holding public office.
In Debs' case he was more of a political prisoner. I can't remember if it was for protesting WWI or for being held in contempt for refusing court injunctions during a strike (he did short stints in jail for both) so I think it wouldn't be crazy for the previous candidate to pardon them so they could serve if it came to that. In Trump's case such a pardon would be tantamount to a coup on its own. Insurrection is the most serious crime you can commit against a state.
There is an article on this topic today on CNN:
Could Donald Trump serve as president if convicted?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/president-serve-vote-indictment-trump-2020-election/index.html
There are laws against being an American president that were broken when he took that position the last time. Several issues that made him ineligible, but it didn't seem to ever stop anything that went on.
They are laws that apply still, and now there is also how he hasn't been a president for several years. They cannot again be president of someone else has been a president for two or more years in the meantime, or something like that.
But seen from the outside, I reckon he's going to just end up in the ovalofoce once more.
Can you elaborate? He did many, many illegal things, but as far as I know none of them (as of January 2017) made him ineligible to be president.
From @psi's comment:
When Trump took office in 2017, he met all the requirements necessary to be president. Hypothetically he may be disqualified in 2024. It is very much the case in the US that criminals are eligible to hold presidential office (outside of those who lead rebellions or are convicted from impeachment hearings-- note that Trump was impeached twice but not convicted, so as of August 1, 2023 he is still technically eligible to be president).
As far as I am aware, a person cannot have financial ties/debt to other countries, yet he had, in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
And as for this time around, there is also the reason that if someone that has already been president, they cannot take that office again if someone else has held the position for I think 2 or 3 years since the last time they were president.
I am not well versed enough with US laws to find the relevant texts, but read this in newspapers both the last time and this.
However, I also don't think it matters and that he will end up president again.
Which quite frankly sucks. I have no mature, eloquent language that explains it better. Because it normalizes and boosts absolutely atrocious behaviour in both politics and everyday behaviour in people around the world.
Just seeing that someone like that runs the show in the biggest Western powerhouse has derailed public behaviour so much as it is.
But doesn't the last sentence of your quote there say that if someone else has been president for more than two years since they were the president, they cannot become president again?
It means that if you serve less than a full term (e.g., you were Vice President, the President resigned, and you became President), then for the purpose of the 22nd Amendment you would round up to 1 term if you were the acting President for more than 2 years, but you would round down to 0 terms otherwise.
Or to put it more succinctly, the 2 years is referring to is just defining how long someone has to serve in order for it to "count" as one of the 2-term maximum.
Part of the context of that amendment was that the president at the time (FDR) was very popular and had been elected four times, but towards the end his health started deteriorating. This was partly a check against that happening in the future, so the goal was to establish a range of acceptable min/max, not disqualify someone generally.
I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a new amendment that adds a "maximum age" limit.
The wheels of justice grind slowly. But they grind properly.
If ever a fucker needed locking up, it needs to be now.
Interestingly he's still able to run for president from prison.
Along those lines, I feel like we’ve all gotten too acquainted with the old curse, “May you live in interesting times.”
I would happily welcome some boring times now.
May my children live in dull, boring times. Which of course usually causes its own issues of complacency, but still. Shits been crazy my entire adult life and I'm ready for a break in the insanity.
I think it's been like this forever with Bush v gore, 9/11, war on drugs, cuban missiles, WW2, WW1 and so on
I would have no love for boring times either, frankly. Smells too much to me of ignoring problems in favor of an absence of tension.
What would happen, hypothetically, if he were to do that, and win? Presumably he wouldn’t just automatically walk free. I suppose he’d try to pardon himself, but even if that worked what would the preceding events look like, of inauguration, forming a cabinet, and so on, while incarcerated?