One thing conspicuously missing from the Jan6th hearings is astrology. The amateur psychics have told us what Trump was THINKING, but we also need to know WHY he was thinking it. As a Gemini, I think I qualify as a "source familiar with his thinking." Can I be a witness?
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) July 2, 2022
Saturday, July 2, 2022
Given the entire case against Trump relies on proving what he believed was the exact opposite of what he stated?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The President of the Arizona legislation, Karan Fann, who touted in the emails that Trump had called her personally, ordered an election review of the 2020 results.
Her phone records were subpoenaed two days ago.
What he was thinking doesn't matter. What he said and did matter.
According to Hutchison, Trump knew that some of his supporters would be armed that day, and sent them to the Capitol anyway, even hoping to join them. So, does this open up the former president to be criminally liable?
Yeah, this is what I would call smoking gun evidence.
July 2, 2022, 2:30 AM PDT
By Baynard Woods, author of "Inheritance: An Autobiography of Whiteness"
Even as the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court was sworn in Thursday, the slate of rulings from the newly empowered, right-wing and originalist court majority this term has made it clearer than ever that the court is motivated by a reliance on the white supremacist patriarchy of the Constitution’s framers.
With Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade last week, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court has signaled its desire to “make America great again” using 18th and 19th century standards to address modern problems. Specifically, these rulings rely heavily on a judicial philosophy called originalism, which argues that in interpreting the Constitution, we must hold the intent — i.e., the thought processes of the framers — above all else.
Originalist judges express a belief that we should interpret the U.S. Constitution according to the legal opinions of 18th century white men.
In other words, in those decisions, originalist judges express a belief that we should interpret the U.S. Constitution according to the legal opinions of 18th century white men — the same white men who denied the right to vote or own property to anyone but themselves.
But I would submit that the reason that such a judicial view is not only possible, but also predominant, among our highest jurists is because so few of us white men (and increasingly, white women) have been willing, over these last centuries, to question our inheritance of historic American privilege.
Originalism is patriarchal white supremacy.
We had slavery and the white European immigrants took the entire country from the native American people.
They are not just getting rid of the 20th century society advances, but going back the day the Constitution was accepted.
Two solutions.
Expanding the number of justices
Eliminate the filibuster
Mark Zuckerberg has issued a chilling message to Meta Platforms Inc. employees: The company faces one of the “worst downturns that we’ve seen in recent history” that will necessitate a scaling back in hires and resources.
July 4th....
"The first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms".
Today's Traitors of the Socialist Democrats are ofthe same ilk.
Trump thinks he is ‘on trial’ as America celebrates Independence Day weekend
Bob Brigham
July 02, 2022
As America celebrated Independence Day weekend, Donald Trump complained about his lot in life on his Truth Social website.
Trump began with a smear of his perceived enemies, repeated his lies about the 2020 presidential, and seemed to worry about his legal liability.
"So the lowlifes Rigged and Stole a Presidential Election, and I’m the one who is on trial," Trump posted, presumably referring to the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
While Trump is not yet on trial, he could be in the future following Tuesday's bombshell testimony by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman says the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol has evidence Trump committed six crimes in his failed coup and cover-up.
The hearings are reportedly also "softening" support among Trump's MAGA base.
On Saturday, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner said the select committee had obtained both "smoking gun" and "loaded gun" evidence.
Trump is also reportedly considering declaring his 2024 candidacy as early as this month — and may not even inform his staff before he posts it on Truth Social.
Also on Saturday, The Washington Post editorial board called upon Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump.
"The Justice Department has investigative powers that the Jan. 6 committee does not, and there are critical questions that remain unanswered. Mr. Garland should have no higher priority than using these powers to investigate all of those involved in one of the darkest days in American history," the editorial board wrote.
The Washington Post
We can no longer avoid a criminal investigation into Donald Trump
By the Editorial Board
July 2, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. EDT
After another week of riveting testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee, it is natural to wonder: How many laws were broken, by whom, and will there be prosecutions? Some argue that former president Donald Trump is undoubtedly guilty of serious crimes and must be tried. Others insist that the criminal case against Mr. Trump still is not airtight, and that prosecuting a former president would tear apart the country. What is beyond doubt is that an intensive criminal investigation must proceed.
The committee heard June 28 from Cassidy Hutchinson, who was a top Trump White House aide. Ms. Hutchinson said that Mr. Trump instructed his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to talk to conservative provocateur Roger Stone the night before the Capitol attack. Mr. Stone was photographed on Jan. 6 with members of the far-right Oath Keepers organization, multiple members of which were allegedly involved in the assault. She said that she heard mention of the Oath Keepers and the fringe Proud Boys group during the run-up to Jan. 6, when Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was around.
Ms. Hutchinson also testified that Mr. Meadows sought to attend a Jan. 5 “war room” that included Mr. Giuliani, former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon and other extremists. She said Mr. Meadows relented after she protested that the White House chief of staff should not be involved, but that he said he would dial in to the meetings.
This testimony underscores questions about precisely what Mr. Trump and his senior staff knew about what would unfold the next day.
Ms. Hutchinson testified that, on Jan. 6 itself, Mr. Trump was told that the crowd that he had assembled was armed. He nevertheless urged the mob to march on the Capitol, fight and show strength — and, according to Ms. Hutchinson and by his own admission, Mr. Trump wanted to accompany them.
The public needs more information. That requires the committee to hear from more witnesses, which in turn requires the Justice Department to prosecute those, such as Mr. Meadows, who have defied committee subpoenas. It also means the department should examine seriously concerns that Trump allies are trying to influence Jan. 6 committee witnesses.
And, yes, the department should conduct a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump himself. Attorney General Merrick Garland appears to be treating this prospect with a high degree of care, and appropriately so. A new administration prosecuting a former president of the opposite party would set a perilous precedent; one need only look at the long record of failed democracies abroad, in which new leaders tried those they deposed, to see the danger. Prosecuting Mr. Trump also risks helping him politically.
On the other hand, if Mr. Trump is clearly, unquestionably guilty of committing a serious crime — not just arguably so — the department might have little choice. Central to our system of justice is the principle that no one is above the law.
The Justice Department has investigative powers that the Jan. 6 committee does not, and there are critical questions that remain unanswered. Mr. Garland should have no higher priority than using these powers to investigate all of those involved in one of the darkest days in American history.
Roger was Bork worth it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/02/donald-trump-criminal-investigation-jan-6/
Post a Comment