I urge you (and everyone else) to read the actual indictment. (It's really not that long.) President Trump is not being prosecuted for simply lying about the election results.
Sorry but that's essentially what it boils down to. You can use more formal scarier sounding language like "defraud" and "conspiracy" but it essentially boils down to a thoughtcrime and therefore will not hold up outside of a banana republic.
You obviously haven't read the Indictment. Public statements like the infamous "Be there. Will be wild!" Trump exhortation may be protected by the First Amendment. But that isn't what the large majority of the Indictment is about.
There are ZERO First Amendment protections extended to discussions on how to, for example, get people in various states to sign false electoral certifications -- basically you can't say "it's my opinion that certain people should commit a crime, and I have a First Amendment right to tell them how to do that." That would be totally absurd and the Constitution is not construed to be an absurd document.
Sorry but that's essentially what it boils down to. You can use more formal scarier sounding language like "defraud" and "conspiracy" but it essentially boils down to a thoughtcrime and therefore will not hold up outside of a banana republic.
You obviously haven't read the Indictment. Public statements like the infamous "Be there. Will be wild!" Trump exhortation may be protected by the First Amendment. But that isn't what the large majority of the Indictment is about.
There are ZERO First Amendment protections extended to discussions on how to, for example, get people in various states to sign false electoral certifications -- basically you can't say "it's my opinion that certain people should commit a crime, and I have a First Amendment right to tell them how to do that." That would be totally absurd and the Constitution is not construed to be an absurd document.
The highly coordinated and planned effort to produce and distribute the fake slate of electors was the most striking part to me. Nothing like that had ever been done before. Comparing that Gore or H Clinton makes zero sense.
You obviously haven't read the Indictment. Public statements like the infamous "Be there. Will be wild!" Trump exhortation may be protected by the First Amendment. But that isn't what the large majority of the Indictment is about.
There are ZERO First Amendment protections extended to discussions on how to, for example, get people in various states to sign false electoral certifications -- basically you can't say "it's my opinion that certain people should commit a crime, and I have a First Amendment right to tell them how to do that." That would be totally absurd and the Constitution is not construed to be an absurd document.
The highly coordinated and planned effort to produce and distribute the fake slate of electors was the most striking part to me. Nothing like that had ever been done before. Comparing that Gore or H Clinton makes zero sense.
Exactly man and thanks for adding your perspective
The indictment is not vague - read it.
The 'abuse' was by Trump and his attempt as a sitting president to manipulate an fair/legal election.
The reason this type of case is unprecedented is because Trump's attempt to overturn a fair/legal election is unprecedented.
Just curious, does the indictment mention that he told people to march peacefully? That negates any possible charge of solicitation, seditious conspiracy, incitement, fraud, or insurrection. If not then it's just a political document as I suspected.
I'm not from the US, but it seems increasingly to be a country similar to Turkey or Russia where the political opposition use criminal law as a tool to get into power, or to deter applicants standing for the opposition. Isn't Clinton supposed to have done far worse? Is Obama squeaky clean? How about the people behind Biden?
I agree with you that these charges are worryingly vague and all encompassing. I would expect to see charges much more specifically created as offences in a first world country. The nature of those charges mean that they are open to abuse by political opponents.
Exactly man and thanks for adding your perspective
The abuse is by Trump, not by his political opponents. That is why he will stand trial. If you think the US system of justice is like that of Russia (or Turkey) then your democracy is already gone. It hasn't - yet - but if Trump escapes the law it will be.
The 'abuse' was by Trump and his attempt as a sitting president to manipulate an fair/legal election.
The reason this type of case is unprecedented is because Trump's attempt to overturn a fair/legal election is unprecedented.
Just curious, does the indictment mention that he told people to march peacefully? That negates any possible charge of solicitation, seditious conspiracy, incitement, fraud, or insurrection. If not then it's just a political document as I suspected.
Good lord man, don’t comment on it any more before you read it.
Trump and his coconspirators organized groups of people only in the states he LOST to fraudulently sign official documents trying to pass themselves as official electors voting for Trump.
He organized this HIGHLY ILLEGAL plan to defeat democracy and stay in power.
What more do you people need to know!
There were so many parts of this, but just focus on this for starts. If you don't see this as illegal you have your head buried in sand.
The 'abuse' was by Trump and his attempt as a sitting president to manipulate an fair/legal election.
The reason this type of case is unprecedented is because Trump's attempt to overturn a fair/legal election is unprecedented.
Just curious, does the indictment mention that he told people to march peacefully? That negates any possible charge of solicitation, seditious conspiracy, incitement, fraud, or insurrection. If not then it's just a political document as I suspected.
He didn't urge peaceful protest. You are completely unaware of what he said and did that day - and afterwards. Criminal proceedings are not founded on "peaceful protest".
Trump and his coconspirators organized groups of people only in the states he LOST to fraudulently sign official documents trying to pass themselves as official electors voting for Trump.
He organized this HIGHLY ILLEGAL plan to defeat democracy and stay in power.
What more do you people need to know!
There were so many parts of this, but just focus on this for starts. If you don't see this as illegal you have your head buried in sand.
Just curious, does the indictment mention that he told people to march peacefully? That negates any possible charge of solicitation, seditious conspiracy, incitement, fraud, or insurrection. If not then it's just a political document as I suspected.
Good lord man, don’t comment on it any more before you read it.
Why can't you answer my question? I'll take that as a no and that's enough to confirm my initial conclusions.
Remind me if they indicted Gore, Hillary, Waters, etc. for challenging the legitimacy of an election.
Challenging the legitimacy of an election can be a reasonable action (although I don't personally see the same degree of reasonableness in each of your examples).
There are many such reasonable actions. Some of Former President Trump's actions were reasonable, some were not very reasonable but legal, and some were (apparently and allegedly) neither. I don't think filing lawsuits (and losing nearly all of them) was one of the counts in the indictment. Former President Trump had every right to do that.
Democrats attempted to block certification of election results in the house in 2001, 2005 and 2017. They even had a senator sign on in 2005. Those attempts were far more of a legitimate threat to overturn an election than anything in 2020.
Just curious, does the indictment mention that he told people to march peacefully? That negates any possible charge of solicitation, seditious conspiracy, incitement, fraud, or insurrection. If not then it's just a political document as I suspected.
He didn't urge peaceful protest. You are completely unaware of what he said and did that day - and afterwards. Criminal proceedings are not founded on "peaceful protest".
That’s the thing, right? The guy always says everything, does a lot of implying things to maintain plausible deniability, etc.
I mean, the whole shtick is saying multiple conflicting things, implying the need for some insidious act, and then after the wheels are set in motion making some explicit yet feeble CYA-geared statement against the insidious act. His supporters pretend it’s all on the level because that’s the game of owning the libs.
Challenging the legitimacy of an election can be a reasonable action (although I don't personally see the same degree of reasonableness in each of your examples).
There are many such reasonable actions. Some of Former President Trump's actions were reasonable, some were not very reasonable but legal, and some were (apparently and allegedly) neither. I don't think filing lawsuits (and losing nearly all of them) was one of the counts in the indictment. Former President Trump had every right to do that.
Democrats attempted to block certification of election results in the house in 2001, 2005 and 2017. They even had a senator sign on in 2005. Those attempts were far more of a legitimate threat to overturn an election than anything in 2020.
Challenging the legitimacy of an election can be a reasonable action (although I don't personally see the same degree of reasonableness in each of your examples).
There are many such reasonable actions. Some of Former President Trump's actions were reasonable, some were not very reasonable but legal, and some were (apparently and allegedly) neither. I don't think filing lawsuits (and losing nearly all of them) was one of the counts in the indictment. Former President Trump had every right to do that.
Democrats attempted to block certification of election results in the house in 2001, 2005 and 2017. They even had a senator sign on in 2005. Those attempts were far more of a legitimate threat to overturn an election than anything in 2020.
“Democrats” how many? It was a dumb protest that was an act of getting attention, not at overturning the result. They didn’t organize fake electors or send thousands to trash the capital or try to have results sent back to the states. At no point did the outgoing administration in 2000 or 2016 take affirmative steps to derail or defraud the certification process. Gore had a legitimate grip as the Supreme Court told Florida to stop counting votes, a state of millions that Bush won by 537 votes, but once the court ruled against him, he did the right thing and said time to move on.
Trump was told time and time again by his own staff that there was no legitimate basis for fraud so he had to make it up because he didn’t want to give up the power and protection that the office of the Presidency offers.
The brilliance of adding the fake electors scheme makes the first amendment arguments of Trump meaningless. There is no first amendment argument for telling lies to state fake electors and employees to sign fake documents. To lie about their positions. They had an entire scheme in place to fool people into signing these. they lied to them about what they were and what they were for. It is flat out Fraud and it is also defrauding citizens of their vote. That is kinda serious. And they have many witnesses to that scheme.
And Mike Pence is the star witness!
There is no way Trump can play the "I am ignorant card" nor the first amendment card.
Every single Right winger is talking out of their Azz this morning and proving they have not read the indictment. And they won't read the indictment. It is blasphemy against their beloved leader.
I remember when Dr. Timothy Snyder was making the rounds on the political talks shows in 2017 warning about the impending fascism of Trump. I remember thinking at that time that Trump was too dumb and incompetent to actually be a fascist. When Jan 6 came around, everyone was lauded Dr. Snyder claiming that he predicted it. But the decisive moment came when Trump capitulated and went on TV calling for the Jan 6 riot to end. If Trump was really a fascist, he would have called on the military to seize Congress and made a naked grab for power. But he didn't.
Trump is not a fascist. Trump is a capitalist who comes from a long line of CEOs and powerful capitalists who see the world as a competition where the rules are for suckers. Trump's stop the steal was nothing like Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch or Pinochet shelling the presidential palace. It was more like Phillip Morris claiming for decades that cigarette do not cause cancer or Exxon Mobil knowing that CO2 emissions causes climate change but spending millions on PR campaigns claiming the exact opposite. Trump was formed in a capitalist economy where wrongdoers regularly win and rarely are held accountable. Trump business career has from the beginning been all about winning at any costs and to hell with the rules. So, stop the steal was not an attempt to subvert democracy and implement fascism. It was a marketing ploy to try to turn a bad loss into a win. It came out of a business ethic (or lack thereof) that says you do whatever it takes to win and those who follow the rules are weak losers.
With that in mind, the criminal charges around January 6 are necessary not because our democracy depends on it. They are necessary because there is an ongoing battle in our society between those who believe like Trump that life is just a game where you do whatever it takes to win no matter who gets hurt in the process and all the regular people who get hurt. Trump is just on a continuum from asbestos to black lung to the S&L crisis to 2008 housing crash to Enron to FTX and so on.
That Trump didn't try to implement a military coup doesn't mean he isn't a fascist; quite apart from the fact that General Milley gave an undertaking to Speaker Pelosi he wouldn't go along with a military takeover if ordered, Trump attempted a coup through a mob (which was Hitler's beerhall putsch) and by other non-legal means (fake electors etc) with the intent of overthrowing an elected government.
A businessman can be a fascist (and often are) as it is defined by their political values and not their position in society or their role in the state. It isn't only generals who are fascists - and nor does it require intelligence to be one (only perhaps one who is successful).
A fascist movement is founded on the cult of personality, it is anti-democratic and disregards the fundamental principles of the rule of law. That is Trump and his more fanatical followers. Hence the indictment has likened Trump's actions to Nazi Germany in the early 30's. That makes it perfectly clear what you are dealing with.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.