LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's JournalOn targeting Hillary Clinton, Trump rewrites recent history
Donald Trump now says it wouldve been terrible if hed tried to prosecute Hillary Clinton after the 2016 election. But that's exactly what he did.
https://twitter.com/stevebenen/status/1783929941530206578
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/targeting-hillary-clinton-trump-rewrites-recent-history-rcna149510
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1783669839728349590
.....To the extent that reality still has any meaning, lets review the receipts. In Trumps first year in the White House after the 2016 election was over and Clinton largely withdrew from public view the then-president publicly pleaded with the Justice Department to go after Clinton.
A year later, in 2018, the then-president told the White House counsel that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton.
Ahead of Election Day 2020 nearly four years after Clintons defeat Trump again publicly called for the Democrats incarceration and lobbied then-Attorney General Barr to prosecute Clinton for reasons unknown.
None of this was kept secret. It happened out in the open. We all saw it play out in public.
And yet, there was Trump on national television last night, patting himself on the back for showing restraint, saying it wouldve been terrible and horrible if hed targeted Clinton after the 2016 election and tried to have her prosecuted.
The problem, of course, is that Trump targeted Clinton after the 2016 election and tried to have her prosecuted. Its not a matter of opinion; its simply what happened, whether the Republican assumes weve forgotten or not.
This is on top of the bogus lawsuit that TFG filed against Clinton and others where the court awarded almost $1 million in damages and attorney fees against TFG and Alina Habba. TFG holds grudges and if TFG is re-elected then TFG will use Project 2025 to go after President Biden, Hillary Clinton, President Biden and a host of other persons.
An unsettled contradiction at the heart of Trump's immunity claim
On immunity and impeachment, Donald Trump and his lawyers made one argument in 2021 and the opposite argument in 2024.
https://twitter.com/stevebenen/status/1783850967126982857
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/unsettled-contradiction-heart-trumps-immunity-claim-rcna149502
It is, to be sure, a difficult argument to take seriously. The presumptive GOP nominees defense counsel apparently expects the judiciary to agree that a former president might be subject to prosecution for some of the most outrageous felonies imaginable but only if a majority of the U.S. House and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate act first.
But its not just foolish. Its also the opposite of what the Republicans lawyers said during Trumps second impeachment trial. MSNBCs Chris Hayes was understandably exasperated by this as the oral arguments progressed.
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1783515539370819620
This might seem a little complicated at first glance, but its actually entirely straightforward:
In early 2021, Trumps lawyers said during his second impeachment trial that there was no need for the Senate to convict the former president, because the matter was better left to the judiciary.
In early 2024, Trumps lawyers said the former presidents alleged crimes cant be left to the judiciary, because the Senate didnt vote to convict.
......In other words, Team Trump effectively argued in 2021, Congress should leave such matters to the courts. Its now arguing, The matter cant be left to the courts because Congress needs to act.
How are the former president and his lawyers resolving the contradiction? By ignoring it and hoping others dont notice.
On Trump's trial, voters aren't buying what the GOP is selling
Donald Trump and his allies set out to convince the public his ongoing criminal trial is meritless. New polling suggests they've failed completely.
https://twitter.com/StephenWunderl4/status/1783585216218706184
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-trial-voters-arent-buying-gop-selling-rcna149378
Forty-six percent of voters believe former President Trump did something illegal, while 27 percent believe he did something unethical but nothing illegal, and 18 percent believe he did not do anything wrong. Voters were asked how it would impact their vote if Donald Trump were convicted in the New York City criminal trial. If Trump were convicted, 21 percent say they would be less likely to vote for him, 62 percent say it would not make a difference to their vote, and 15 percent say they would be more likely to vote for him.
In other words, as Trump insists he did absolutely nothing wrong in this criminal case, only about a fifth of the public believes him.
This is roughly consistent with the latest national survey from the Pew Research Center, the results of which were also released this week. It found that 45% of Americans believe that Trumps actions were illegal, while an additional 15% see the Republicans actions as wrong but not illegal. Only 23% agreed with the former presidents contention that he did nothing wrong.
This data comes on the heels of the latest national New York Times/Siena College poll, conducted shortly before the trial began in earnest, and which asked respondents, Thinking about the investigations into Donald Trump, do you think that Donald Trump has or has not committed any serious federal crimes?
A 54% majority said the presumptive GOP nominee has committed serious crimes, while 37% said the opposite......
But if Trump and his allies believe theyve convinced the great American mainstream that hes an innocent man who shouldnt be on trial, theres ample evidence to the contrary.
Pressed on the 'assassination' question, Team Trump doubles down
Pushing an audacious immunity claim, Donald Trump's defense attorneys keep confronting the "assassination" question and answering it an unsettling way.
https://twitter.com/hateGOP/status/1783931382034469355
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-assassination-question-team-trump-doubles-rcna149494
In a question to Sauer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed a hypothetical: If the president ordered the military to assassinate a rival he views as corrupt, is that within his official act for which he can get immunity? Sauer answered that, it would depend, but we can see that could well be an official act.
He was, by all appearances, quite sincere about this.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1783499770490720657
.......All of which left us with an unsettling dynamic:
Trumps defense counsel concocted an audacious immunity claim, rooted in the idea that a president can commit some of the most outrageous felonies imaginable.
Every federal judge whos ruled on the argument has fundamentally rejected it as ridiculous.
Team Trump continues to double down on the claim as if it has merit and its at least possible that an untold number of Supreme Court justices might be willing to rule in the Republicans favor.
Most high court observers tended to agree yesterday that the justices will not endorse Trumps expansive claims to absolute immunity. Its more likely that the Supreme Court will come up with some kind of new rule related to prosecutions and official acts, all of which will send the matter back to the district court and delay the process further.
And since the entire point of this absurd series of appeals is to run out the clock before Election Day 2024, the justices will be playing their part in effectively immunizing Trump from pre-election accountability for the most serious of the former presidents alleged felonies.
It was nevertheless against this backdrop that Team Trump once again confronted the assassination question, and answered it in a head-spinning way.
The Lincoln Project-It's so tragic that Kristi Noem didn't see this important PSA before she did what she did.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1783964266682331243The Lincoln Project-It's so tragic that Kristi Noem didn't see this important PSA before she did what she did.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1783964266682331243This work by courtroom sketch artist Edvard Munch is called "The Nap"
https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1783521426382717004DA Ogg, Texas AG Paxton join forces on criminal cases against Lina Hidalgo's former staffers
Kim Ogg was really a republican and was working with the GOP and Paxton before she was voted out. Ogg indicted a couple of County Judge Lina Hidalgo's aides (including the son of a friend). Now that Ogg was voted out, she is joining forces with Paxton to keep this political prosecution going.
https://twitter.com/jen_rice_/status/1783633047079747963
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/hidalgo-staffers-elevate-strategies-paxton-ogg-19422060.php
Though Ogg, who lost her reelection bid in the March Democratic primary to former prosecutor Sean Teare, argued that her possible successor cannot be trusted with the cases, she stopped short of recusing her office, thereby preserving the next district attorney's involvement. .....
Ogg's decision has sown confusion regarding both her motivation to essentially give up the case and the literal meaning of her words. She asked Paxton to "assume jurisdiction" in the cases, but Paxton's office said in a news release that it "will assist" the district attorneys office.....
Ogg's move is an unusual one, according to Amanda Peters, a professor at South Texas College of Law who worked as a prosecutor in Harris County from 1999 to 2007.
"If she were concerned about the future of these cases, she would recuse her office so Sean Teare could never be involved in their prosecution," Peters said. "This option doesn't seem to do that."
I was very happy when Ogg was voted out by a very wide margin in the primary. She was a horrible DA and a nasty person
DA Ogg, Texas AG Paxton join forces on criminal cases against Lina Hidalgo's former staffers
Kim Ogg was really a republican and was working with the GOP and Paxton before she was voted out. Ogg indicted a couple of County Judge Lina Hidalgo's aides (including the son of a friend). Now that Ogg was voted out, she is joining forces with Paxton to keep this political prosecution going.
https://twitter.com/jen_rice_/status/1783633047079747963
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/hidalgo-staffers-elevate-strategies-paxton-ogg-19422060.php
Though Ogg, who lost her reelection bid in the March Democratic primary to former prosecutor Sean Teare, argued that her possible successor cannot be trusted with the cases, she stopped short of recusing her office, thereby preserving the next district attorney's involvement. .....
Ogg's decision has sown confusion regarding both her motivation to essentially give up the case and the literal meaning of her words. She asked Paxton to "assume jurisdiction" in the cases, but Paxton's office said in a news release that it "will assist" the district attorneys office.....
Ogg's move is an unusual one, according to Amanda Peters, a professor at South Texas College of Law who worked as a prosecutor in Harris County from 1999 to 2007.
"If she were concerned about the future of these cases, she would recuse her office so Sean Teare could never be involved in their prosecution," Peters said. "This option doesn't seem to do that."
I was very happy when Ogg was voted out by a very wide margin in the primary. She was a horrible DA and a nasty person
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 145,558