I agree with Stetson. McConnell wants Trump's head, but he wants it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack. He wants to be able to cry over Trump's corpse, to lead his funeral procession, perhaps even to execute Trump's executioners himself. He does not want to wear the blame.
Did you mean to write "...he doesn't want it thrown to the floor at his feet in a bloody sack"? Because that would seem to fit your metaphorical segue better: usually, when the head is thrown at somebody's feet, it signifies clearly that that guy is the one who ordered the death. Whereas we're both arguing that McConnell would try to avoid being seen as responsible for Trump's downfall.
Rather than Shakespeare, I was thinking of Henry II of England's "who will rid me of this turbulent Priest" non-order. But he got the blame in spades. Maybe a better historical analogy is when someone presented Pompey's head to Julius Caesar. Pompey's death sealed Caesar's civil war victory, and its manner allowed him to demonstrate his own Roman virtue by honoring his erstwhile foe. In an added bonus, he also killed the regent who ordered it, putting Cleopatra on the throne, and making her his client. Top result!
well, thread continues, but I know what you mean. I read some commentary from a source I'm leery about (Business Insider) suggesting some of Cheney's comments point to an active search for evidence to support a prosecution of Trump himself. Has anyone else got that sense from her?
Thread begins: Tracing the actions of, and reactions to, post-president Donald Trump
Thread ends: Finicking over the fiddly details of an ambiguous passage in Shakeapeare
Ah, but Shakespeare is very perceptive of modern politics. Not changed in several hundred years. While we are on Shakey's ground, lets make mention of Joel Coen's film, The Tragedy of Macbeth is now out on Apple+ TV. It is based on Shakespeare's play. Again, something about a power hungry Scottish Lord wanting to take over the throne of Scotland. Life imitating art?
Meanwhile, Congress is trying to figure out whether or not you-know-who committed a crime. So what were they trying to do a year ago? Figure out how to scratch their you-know-whats without fouling up the air?
Meanwhile, Congress is trying to figure out whether or not you-know-who committed a crime. So what were they trying to do a year ago? Figure out how to scratch their you-know-whats without fouling up the air?
"High crimes and misdemeanours" are not necessarily crimes under federal law (I don't know if the US has an equivalent crime to "misconduct in public office" but I presume not or they'd have nailed Trump's pelt to the wall a long time ago).
Shakey? Who said [url="://viz.co.uk/quakey-shakey/"]Shakey?[/url]
(Sorry Gramps, that gag - and the often-rude comic it is taken from - are probably a bit UK-centric. The guy was a kind-of-Welsh-Elvis who enjoyed brief popularity 30+ years ago, and is something of a cause celebre amongst UK comic lovers who are not clever enough to follow the current affairs in Private Eye).
(ETA Broke link, needs to be two clicks or more to NSFW material please, Doublethink, Temporary Purgatory Host)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/20/trump-new-york-state-attorney-general-letitia-james
I'm wondering: does Trump genuinely believe that the courts are a big "someone's being mean to me make them stop, Nanny!" button or is he just throwing lawsuits around because he thinks his usual trick of bankrupting all his opponents with legal fees before the case goes to trial will work on a state attorney or, on the vestigial third hand, is he just trying to run out the clock so he'd dead (or president again) before anything touches him?
I like the third (vestigial ) suggestion the most - the dead version - but I think that implies a sort of class and self-awareness that he doesn't have.
is he just throwing lawsuits around because he thinks his usual trick of bankrupting all his opponents with legal fees before the case goes to trial will work on a state attorney
I'm not surprised that you-know-who doesn't know when to use the objective case of the relative pronoun, but I'd expect more from his attorneys.
a desire to harass, intimidate and retaliate against a private citizen who [sic, italics added] she views as a political opponent
Unfortunately for all the above remarks, the subject of this thread (unlike Caesar) still lives, breathes, and plots among us. It's a shameful pity the US Senate apparently lacks the intestinal fortitude of its Roman forebears and refuses to bar this would-be self-enriching dictator from any consideration for all public office, including dogcatcher.
I'm not surprised that you-know-who doesn't know when to use the objective case of the relative pronoun, but I'd expect more from his attorneys.
Given the suits he is filing are fairly clearly vexatious and he has a habit of not paying his contractors that's exactly what I'd expect of the sort of dollar-store Saul Goodman types he's likely to be able the recruit. Has anyone checked they're even qualified?
Meanwhile, Congress is trying to figure out whether or not you-know-who committed a crime. So what were they trying to do a year ago? Figure out how to scratch their you-know-whats without fouling up the air?
Nick can explain it better. The Select Committee has taken its time, first to agree to procedures, then to begin background research, and now to interview witnesses. Trump is fighting it all the way, trying to run out the clock, but I bet committee will come out with a report and possibly criminal referral before the mid term elections. Then it will be up to the Justice Department to carry the ball which will take another couple of years.
I have very strong feelings in favor of @Amanda B Reckondwyth , one of her many fans on this page. I understand and share her frustration at the apparent delays. Some days, I can sit back and be happy waiting for the process to play out. Other days, I'm like one of those facebook gifs you get when you type "frustration" into the search window.
EDIT: I'm not saying you don't feel the same way Gramps, to be clear,
When do you think Attorney General Garland will take the case of Donald Trump inciting the insurrection of 6 January 2021 to the Grand Jury?
Will it be before the criminal referral by the House Select Committee?
Will it be after the mid term elections (which would likely be the effective end of the Select Committee)?
I would think the AG would want Trump in the dock (and possibly convicted) before the 2024 elections.
BTW. I appreciated former Vice President Dick Cheney standing in the well of the Congress in commemoration of the insurrection His Daughter and He are the only real Republicans who stood in the well for the commemoration of the anniversary of the insurrection.
I feel like the Jan 6 Ctee is working at full speed. They mightn't get testimony from the recalcitrant, but they will get the referral out. My impression is that they are getting as much evidence in that they can.
This is an interview of Liz Chaney by a conservative journalist from The Dispatch which I found interesting. There's nothing new in it, but its interesting to read what she has to say about McCarthy, among others.
When do you think Attorney General Garland will take the case of Donald Trump inciting the insurrection of 6 January 2021 to the Grand Jury?
Will it be before the criminal referral by the House Select Committee?
Will it be after the mid term elections (which would likely be the effective end of the Select Committee)?
Hard to say. Remember that Merrick Garland ran the investigation and prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols and did so without any significant leaks. The first hint we'll have will probably be the public filing of charges. Anything else is just guesswork.
When do you think Attorney General Garland will take the case of Donald Trump inciting the insurrection of 6 January 2021 to the Grand Jury?
Will it be before the criminal referral by the House Select Committee?
Will it be after the mid term elections (which would likely be the effective end of the Select Committee)?
I would think the AG would want Trump in the dock (and possibly convicted) before the 2024 elections.
BTW. I appreciated former Vice President Dick Cheney standing in the well of the Congress in commemoration of the insurrection His Daughter and He are the only real Republicans who stood in the well for the commemoration of the anniversary of the insurrection.
Kinzinger wanted to be there but is on imminent baby arrival watch.
BTW. I appreciated former Vice President Dick Cheney standing in the well of the Congress in commemoration of the insurrection His Daughter and He are the only real Republicans who stood in the well for the commemoration of the anniversary of the insurrection.
Are you suggesting there were imaginary Republicans standing in the well of the House?
Dick and Liz Cheney were the only Republicans there, period—real, imaginary or otherwise. (Though I think it does bear repeating that it’s fair to say Adam Kinzinger was there in spirit.)
Sorry, I'm not prepared to grant any degree of appreciation to Dick Cheney simply for now me-tooing the blatantly obvious, ie. commiting violence to overturn an election is bad.
I suppose there might be some political benefit to having Cheney on board, if it shows Republicans that even some of their fellow party-members think the mob went too far on 1/6. Though I doubt that many people who are still on Team Trump care what Cheney thinks, or even have more than the sketchiest idea as to who he is.
(And as far as I know, Trump has never retracted his pre-presidential statements that the Iraq War was one of the worst foreign-policy decisions ever. That's gotta rankle Bush and Cheney, and calls into serious question their reasons for opposing him.)
Well, if Kitzinger was busy with a birthing, I understand. I had not heard why he was not available.
I have many reasons to oppose Dick Cheney in general, the Iraq War being one of them, but in this one instance, standing in the well with his daughter during the remembrance was the right thing to do. When he left the chamber, he told reporters the current Republican leadership was not like the leadership he worked with when he was in office. That is true.
Besides, I think I would avoid going hunting with him if I were his friend.
Don't know who he is? He was the vice president. Can they have forgotten him already?
Well, that was a prob'ly a bit hyperbolic on my part. Might be more accurate to say that, for the real hardcore Trumpists, Cheney doesn't really enter into their frame of reference much.
Though I will say that someone born in the earlier days of the Bush administration could have voted in the 2020 election, while having no personal memory of Bush and Cheney in office.
I have no personal memory of a lot of people. Most of the famous historical people lived before I was born. But I have learned about a lot of them. Not sure that's a good excuse.
I have no personal memory of a lot of people. Most of the famous historical people lived before I was born. But I have learned about a lot of them. Not sure that's a good excuse.
I'm not making an excuse, in the sense of saying it's okay, just that it probably is the reality for a lot of people. Those of us who post on SoF political threads are quite different from the average person, in terms of the depth of our interest in politics and politicians.
Among people born in 1970 who were voting for the first time in 1988, how many would have considered it relevant at all if someone had asked them "Hey, did you see what Spiro Agnew had to say about this campaign?"
This week has not been a good week for the former president.
1) The New York State Attorney general has documented how Trump mislead banks with false valuations of properties. This is a civil investigation, but a concurrent investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney is looking at the Trump organization is criminally involved.
2) The US Supreme Court has denied Trump's claim of executive privilege, allowing the Select Committee to receive over 700 documents related January 6.
3) A State Attorney General in Georgia as opened a Grand Jury investigation on vote tampering in his state.
4) Ivanka Trump is now invited to discuss her intervention with her father on January 6 with the Select Committee.
Frankly, I think a chink in the armor of Donald Trump will come from Elmer Stewart Rhodes II, the founder of the far right militia group, the Oath Keepers, who was charged with seditious conspiracy in trying to stop the counting of the electoral votes on January 6. This is a rare charge. I am betting Rhodes will try to negotiate to a lesser charge with the information he probably has with a major co conspirator who once occupied the Oval Office.
Just read an interesting article from The Guardian: "The House of Trump is Crumbling." Basically it is about how Trump has lied in overvaluing his properties. The best quote from the who article is by Timothy O'Brian, who wrote the book Trumpland:
Trump has been acting like this ever since he was a toddler.
Which raises the question: Did he ever grow up?
To borrow from the Kingston Trio (The Ballad of the MTA) "No, he never (grew up)."
Another question. The Guardian begins its story about Trump's Scottish property. He obviously has violated a number of Scottish laws. Why hasn't Scotland started legal proceedings?
Just read an interesting article from The Guardian: "The House of Trump is Crumbling." Basically it is about how Trump has lied in overvaluing his properties. The best quote from the who article is by Timothy O'Brian, who wrote the book Trumpland:
Trump has been acting like this ever since he was a toddler.
Which raises the question: Did he ever grow up?
To borrow from the Kingston Trio (The Ballad of the MTA) "No, he never (grew up)."
Another question. The Guardian begins its story about Trump's Scottish property. He obviously has violated a number of Scottish laws. Why hasn't Scotland started legal proceedings?
Property is king in Scotland and the UK in general. Developers are rarely held to account for anything. That said, Trump has lost numerous court battles in relation to his Scottish properties.
I thought the kicker was in the tail of that article, where the difficulty of proving intent in corporate crime was stressed.
Indeed. Mens rea* is vital for criminal liability rather than just civil. If I carefully fill in my tax return as best I can but make a mistake then I am liable for the tax I owe (plus interest) but in no way is that a criminal matter. However, if I deliberately lie to reduce my tax liability that's criminal. It can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent in such cases.
However, I think they've got the evidence. It's all far too slow for my tastes but I think we are seeing serious professionals building a watertight case that will easily weather the inevitable and totally false accusations of a political witch-hunt. I think they have lots and lots of documents and testimony to show that Trump did it knowingly and deliberately.
We shall see.
AFZ
*Latin, legal term meaning criminal intent. Many crimes (though of course not all, as ignorance of the law is no defence) require intent in order to be a crime. Tax, as described above being a perfect example.
Hmm... "guilty mind". In my fantasy version of the trial, the summing up from the prosecution goes something like:
"In the matter of mens rea, of 'guilty mind', I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that one cannot have seen what we have seen, and heard what we have heard, without concluding that the accused not only has a guilty mind, but is guilty down to what remains of his shrivelled, tangerine-tinted soul. The prosecution rests."
*Latin, legal term meaning criminal intent. Many crimes (though of course not all, as ignorance of the law is no defence) require intent in order to be a crime. Tax, as described above being a perfect example.
Actus non fecit reus, nisi sit mens rea - an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is guilty was the traditional phrase in my student days (now over a half century ago).
There are also strict liability crimes which require no Mens Rea - mostly in the business sphere but not always - Speeding and Driving Without Insurance require no Mens Rea.
Kind of goes to the question: "What did Trump know, and when did he know it?"
Now, there is new information that a draft order had been written up ordering the military to seize the electronic voting machines. Trump never signed it, but this would have definitely been overreach.
Former President Donald Trump's longtime accounting firm recently informed the Trump Organization that 10 years worth of Trump's statements on his financial worth "should no longer be relied upon."
<snip>
Mazars said that it reached its conclusion based on James' revelations, its own internal investigation into the matter, and information it received from "internal and external sources."
"While we have not concluded that the various financial statements, as a whole, contain material discrepancies, based upon the totality of the circumstances, we believe our advice to you to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate," the firm said in its letter to the Trump Organization.
Mazars went on to say that because of its decision regarding Trump's statements as well as "the totality of the circumstances," it will no longer be able to "provide any new work product to the Trump Organization."
It also advised the company to "inform any recipients thereof who are currently relying upon one or more of those documents that those documents should not be relied upon."
That sounds like someone who was perfectly willing to collaborate with the former guy in his various alleged frauds but are now trying to distance themselves from him (and their own past) now that scrutiny is being applied.
I'm surprised no one's commented on the latest development, that Trump and his two eldest children all have to testify under oath in the civil investigation of his business practices:
The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. (1) He's going to appeal, and we don't know what the outcome of that will be; and (2) even if he loses the appeal, just watch him suddenly become as forgetful as was another former president, a former movie actor, who was deposed re Iran Contragate.
I'm surprised no one's commented on the latest development, that Trump and his two eldest children all have to testify under oath in the civil investigation of his business practices:
There'll be an appeal, and then we wait to see whether a stay is granted, either for the depositions or the production of documents they refuse to produce; and then we wait for the result of the appeal, which is likely to be "Sorry dude, behave like a citizen and do your duty"/ and then for the next deadline, whatever it is, while in the meantime he and his buds attempt to produce huge distractions against the Democrats, and esp. against Hillary, locked in the past as they are; and then the deadline comes and they either do a half-assed job (turn over a few docs and claim to be hospitalized come testimony day) or outright refuse, in which the whole thing gets referred for enforcement to.... I'm not sure who the state of New York taps for this sort of thing?
But with so many stages, you can see why nobody's too het up. It'll get interesting when they finally tie him to the witness chair.
Former Trump adviser Paul Manafort was removed from a plane at Miami International Airport before it took off for Dubai because he carried a revoked passport, officials said Wednesday.
Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta confirmed that Manafort was removed from the Emirates Airline flight without incident Sunday night but directed further questions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That agency did not immediately respond to an email Wednesday seeking comment.
Is Paul Manafort's passport still revoked from his conviction? (Note that the article says "revoked", not "expired".) You'd think that he'd have had it re-instated after he was pardoned over a year ago, so maybe it's been re-revoked for other reasons? Why go to Dubai now? Why is CBP doing the enforcement on this? Many questions, but not a lot of substance.
Mr. Trump is still fighting the 2016 election. His attorneys are suing Hilary Clinton and the Democratic National Convention for defamation by claiming his people colluded with the Russians. Story here
And the prosecuting attorney who resigned from the New York District Attorney's office said there is no doubt in his mind Mr, T. committed crimes in New York. Story here.
Oh, and T has now withdrawn his endorsement of Mo Brooks for the Alabama Senate seat, because Brooks had the audacity to say Trump lost the 2020 election. Wouldn't it be great if Brooks wins the Republican nomination in spite of Trump's withdrawing his endorsement?
I am thinking T is getting his undies in a twist because he is not always on the front page any more.
Comments
Rather than Shakespeare, I was thinking of Henry II of England's "who will rid me of this turbulent Priest" non-order. But he got the blame in spades. Maybe a better historical analogy is when someone presented Pompey's head to Julius Caesar. Pompey's death sealed Caesar's civil war victory, and its manner allowed him to demonstrate his own Roman virtue by honoring his erstwhile foe. In an added bonus, he also killed the regent who ordered it, putting Cleopatra on the throne, and making her his client. Top result!
Thread ends: Finicking over the fiddly details of an ambiguous passage in Shakeapeare
Ah, but Shakespeare is very perceptive of modern politics. Not changed in several hundred years. While we are on Shakey's ground, lets make mention of Joel Coen's film, The Tragedy of Macbeth is now out on Apple+ TV. It is based on Shakespeare's play. Again, something about a power hungry Scottish Lord wanting to take over the throne of Scotland. Life imitating art?
"High crimes and misdemeanours" are not necessarily crimes under federal law (I don't know if the US has an equivalent crime to "misconduct in public office" but I presume not or they'd have nailed Trump's pelt to the wall a long time ago).
Shakey? Who said [url="://viz.co.uk/quakey-shakey/"]Shakey?[/url]
(Sorry Gramps, that gag - and the often-rude comic it is taken from - are probably a bit UK-centric. The guy was a kind-of-Welsh-Elvis who enjoyed brief popularity 30+ years ago, and is something of a cause celebre amongst UK comic lovers who are not clever enough to follow the current affairs in Private Eye).
(ETA Broke link, needs to be two clicks or more to NSFW material please, Doublethink, Temporary Purgatory Host)
Doublethink, Temporary Purgatory Host
I'm wondering: does Trump genuinely believe that the courts are a big "someone's being mean to me make them stop, Nanny!" button or is he just throwing lawsuits around because he thinks his usual trick of bankrupting all his opponents with legal fees before the case goes to trial will work on a state attorney or, on the vestigial third hand, is he just trying to run out the clock so he'd dead (or president again) before anything touches him?
I'm not surprised that you-know-who doesn't know when to use the objective case of the relative pronoun, but I'd expect more from his attorneys.
Given the suits he is filing are fairly clearly vexatious and he has a habit of not paying his contractors that's exactly what I'd expect of the sort of dollar-store Saul Goodman types he's likely to be able the recruit. Has anyone checked they're even qualified?
Nick can explain it better. The Select Committee has taken its time, first to agree to procedures, then to begin background research, and now to interview witnesses. Trump is fighting it all the way, trying to run out the clock, but I bet committee will come out with a report and possibly criminal referral before the mid term elections. Then it will be up to the Justice Department to carry the ball which will take another couple of years.
However, I saw a blurb on the Guardian that says Trump is beginning to be deeply unnerved as the investigation is closing in. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/20/capitol-attack-investigation-closes-in-trump
Now he is suing the New York State Attorney to stop her from continuing her investigation of his company. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/trump-ny-attorney-general-james/index.html
Did I mention the O'Reilly-Trump tour did not go so well. Lots of empty seats. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-history-tour-over-1661025
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
EDIT: I'm not saying you don't feel the same way Gramps, to be clear,
Will it be before the criminal referral by the House Select Committee?
Will it be after the mid term elections (which would likely be the effective end of the Select Committee)?
I would think the AG would want Trump in the dock (and possibly convicted) before the 2024 elections.
BTW. I appreciated former Vice President Dick Cheney standing in the well of the Congress in commemoration of the insurrection His Daughter and He are the only real Republicans who stood in the well for the commemoration of the anniversary of the insurrection.
Hard to say. Remember that Merrick Garland ran the investigation and prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols and did so without any significant leaks. The first hint we'll have will probably be the public filing of charges. Anything else is just guesswork.
Kinzinger wanted to be there but is on imminent baby arrival watch.
Dick and Liz Cheney were the only Republicans there, period—real, imaginary or otherwise. (Though I think it does bear repeating that it’s fair to say Adam Kinzinger was there in spirit.)
I suppose there might be some political benefit to having Cheney on board, if it shows Republicans that even some of their fellow party-members think the mob went too far on 1/6. Though I doubt that many people who are still on Team Trump care what Cheney thinks, or even have more than the sketchiest idea as to who he is.
(And as far as I know, Trump has never retracted his pre-presidential statements that the Iraq War was one of the worst foreign-policy decisions ever. That's gotta rankle Bush and Cheney, and calls into serious question their reasons for opposing him.)
I have many reasons to oppose Dick Cheney in general, the Iraq War being one of them, but in this one instance, standing in the well with his daughter during the remembrance was the right thing to do. When he left the chamber, he told reporters the current Republican leadership was not like the leadership he worked with when he was in office. That is true.
Besides, I think I would avoid going hunting with him if I were his friend.
Well, that was a prob'ly a bit hyperbolic on my part. Might be more accurate to say that, for the real hardcore Trumpists, Cheney doesn't really enter into their frame of reference much.
Though I will say that someone born in the earlier days of the Bush administration could have voted in the 2020 election, while having no personal memory of Bush and Cheney in office.
I'm not making an excuse, in the sense of saying it's okay, just that it probably is the reality for a lot of people. Those of us who post on SoF political threads are quite different from the average person, in terms of the depth of our interest in politics and politicians.
Among people born in 1970 who were voting for the first time in 1988, how many would have considered it relevant at all if someone had asked them "Hey, did you see what Spiro Agnew had to say about this campaign?"
1) The New York State Attorney general has documented how Trump mislead banks with false valuations of properties. This is a civil investigation, but a concurrent investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney is looking at the Trump organization is criminally involved.
2) The US Supreme Court has denied Trump's claim of executive privilege, allowing the Select Committee to receive over 700 documents related January 6.
3) A State Attorney General in Georgia as opened a Grand Jury investigation on vote tampering in his state.
4) Ivanka Trump is now invited to discuss her intervention with her father on January 6 with the Select Committee.
Frankly, I think a chink in the armor of Donald Trump will come from Elmer Stewart Rhodes II, the founder of the far right militia group, the Oath Keepers, who was charged with seditious conspiracy in trying to stop the counting of the electoral votes on January 6. This is a rare charge. I am betting Rhodes will try to negotiate to a lesser charge with the information he probably has with a major co conspirator who once occupied the Oval Office.
Which raises the question: Did he ever grow up?
To borrow from the Kingston Trio (The Ballad of the MTA) "No, he never (grew up)."
Another question. The Guardian begins its story about Trump's Scottish property. He obviously has violated a number of Scottish laws. Why hasn't Scotland started legal proceedings?
Property is king in Scotland and the UK in general. Developers are rarely held to account for anything. That said, Trump has lost numerous court battles in relation to his Scottish properties.
Indeed. Mens rea* is vital for criminal liability rather than just civil. If I carefully fill in my tax return as best I can but make a mistake then I am liable for the tax I owe (plus interest) but in no way is that a criminal matter. However, if I deliberately lie to reduce my tax liability that's criminal. It can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent in such cases.
However, I think they've got the evidence. It's all far too slow for my tastes but I think we are seeing serious professionals building a watertight case that will easily weather the inevitable and totally false accusations of a political witch-hunt. I think they have lots and lots of documents and testimony to show that Trump did it knowingly and deliberately.
We shall see.
AFZ
*Latin, legal term meaning criminal intent. Many crimes (though of course not all, as ignorance of the law is no defence) require intent in order to be a crime. Tax, as described above being a perfect example.
"In the matter of mens rea, of 'guilty mind', I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that one cannot have seen what we have seen, and heard what we have heard, without concluding that the accused not only has a guilty mind, but is guilty down to what remains of his shrivelled, tangerine-tinted soul. The prosecution rests."
Actus non fecit reus, nisi sit mens rea - an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is guilty was the traditional phrase in my student days (now over a half century ago).
Now, there is new information that a draft order had been written up ordering the military to seize the electronic voting machines. Trump never signed it, but this would have definitely been overreach.
That sounds like someone who was perfectly willing to collaborate with the former guy in his various alleged frauds but are now trying to distance themselves from him (and their own past) now that scrutiny is being applied.
Link to article here
There'll be an appeal, and then we wait to see whether a stay is granted, either for the depositions or the production of documents they refuse to produce; and then we wait for the result of the appeal, which is likely to be "Sorry dude, behave like a citizen and do your duty"/ and then for the next deadline, whatever it is, while in the meantime he and his buds attempt to produce huge distractions against the Democrats, and esp. against Hillary, locked in the past as they are; and then the deadline comes and they either do a half-assed job (turn over a few docs and claim to be hospitalized come testimony day) or outright refuse, in which the whole thing gets referred for enforcement to.... I'm not sure who the state of New York taps for this sort of thing?
But with so many stages, you can see why nobody's too het up. It'll get interesting when they finally tie him to the witness chair.
Well he likes Orange
Is Paul Manafort's passport still revoked from his conviction? (Note that the article says "revoked", not "expired".) You'd think that he'd have had it re-instated after he was pardoned over a year ago, so maybe it's been re-revoked for other reasons? Why go to Dubai now? Why is CBP doing the enforcement on this? Many questions, but not a lot of substance.
And the prosecuting attorney who resigned from the New York District Attorney's office said there is no doubt in his mind Mr, T. committed crimes in New York. Story here.
Oh, and T has now withdrawn his endorsement of Mo Brooks for the Alabama Senate seat, because Brooks had the audacity to say Trump lost the 2020 election. Wouldn't it be great if Brooks wins the Republican nomination in spite of Trump's withdrawing his endorsement?
I am thinking T is getting his undies in a twist because he is not always on the front page any more.