CNN annotated text copy of Trump's third indictment - CNN
Category: News & Politics
Via: tig • last year • 136 commentsBy: Zachary B. Wolf and Curt Merrill (cnn)
A very helpful annotated presentation of the indictment.
The seed contents just lists the annotations. Link to the actual seeded article to see the annotations next to the indictment text.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Zachary B. Wolf and Curt Merrill, CNN
Published Aug. 1, 2023
A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, has indicted former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election probe, accusing him of conspiring to overturn the election, interrupt Congress and take away every American's right to vote and have that vote counted.
As part of special counsel Jack Smith's investigation, Trump faces four specific charges for his efforts to remain in the White House following his election loss. That plot to overturn the election culminated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
An annotated version of the indictment is below.
This indictment is the most consequential. This is Trump's third indictment, but feels like the most consequential. He has been indicted in New York for involvement in a hush-money scheme before he became president. Smith is also prosecuting Trump in federal court in Florida for his treatment of classified material after he left office.
But these new charges have to do with his effort to subvert the democratic republic itself. He is the only person named as a defendant.
It is notable that the indictment refers to him spreading lies: "These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false."
Trump had a right to contest the election. This is an important point the special counsel gets out of the way right off the bat. Trump did have a right to contest the election, in courts and with recounts at the state level. But those efforts were "uniformly unsuccessful," which is true.
Three conspiracies. The victims, as it were, are:
The country, the electoral process of which Trump is alleged to conspire to overturn.
Congress, which had its electoral vote counting ceremony interfered with.
American voters, who were in danger of having their votes overruled.
A very broad conspiracy law. CNN's Tierney Sneed notes: The first count Trump is facing, conspiracy to defraud the United States, is brought under a statute that can be used to prosecute a broad range of conspiracies involving two or more people to violate US law.
Same charges for some January 6 defendants. More from Sneed: Two of the counts Trump is facing relate to obstruction of an official proceeding — brought under provisions included in a federal witness tampering statute that has also been used to prosecute some of the rioters who breached the Capitol on January 6. Those counts carry a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment. The appropriateness of using the law to prosecute the rioters has been litigated in the Capitol breach cases.
Civil rights law. Per Sneed: Trump also faces a conspiracy against rights charge under a Reconstruction-era civil rights law. The law prohibits two or more people from conspiring to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in … the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." It carries a 10-year maximum sentence of imprisonment, unless the conspiracy results in death.
Co-conspirators. Based on quotes in the indictment and other context, CNN can identify five of the six unnamed co-conspirators, according to CNN's Marshall Cohen.
"Co-Conspirator 1" is former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
"2" is former Trump lawyer John Eastman, who masterminded the plan to appoint false electors.
"3" is former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, who worked with Giuliani in court.
"4" is former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who Trump at one point hoped to install as acting attorney general to help him overturn the election.
"5" is pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who sent an email to Giuliani about the fake electors plot.
The identity of "6" is unclear. The indictment says this person is a political consultant who is tied to the fake elector slate in Pennsylvania.
Electoral Count Act. The law that governs the counting of electoral votes was passed in in the wake of the contested election of 1876, which coincidentally featured multiple states with contested electoral votes. It ultimately resulted in a compromise to effectively end the Reconstruction period.
Just so we're all clear. The law was updated in late 2022 with bipartisan support to clarify that, no, the vice president cannot simply reject electoral votes.
Fake electors scheme, explained. Much of this we know from the House select committee that investigated January 6 and also public statements from Trump officials. They didn't exactly hide this plan. Here's some background reading on how the scheme was supposed to work.
Tricked. It is interesting that the special counsel does not entirely blame the false electors, some of whom are described as being "tricked." Here's an even more in-depth look at the fake electors by CNN's Marshall Cohen.
The slate of false electors in Michigan — all 16 of them — have been charged by the attorney general in that state with forgery, among other counts, for signing false certificates. All of the states Trump wanted to contest were won by Joe Biden.
Sham investigations urged. This is an interesting allegation, that Trump's allies essentially used the Department of Justice to lie about evidence of election fraud to gin up investigations at the state level.
Pence did his job. It gets lost at this point, but nobody should forget or gloss over that then-Vice President Mike Pence stood up to Trump, acted in the interest of the Constitution and faced an angry mob in the process.
January 6 attack"exploited"by Trump. CNN's Holmes Lybrand notes: The indictment alleges that Trump and co-conspirators "exploited" the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by continuing efforts to convince members of Congress to delay the certification of the election that day.
The indictment also says that Trump had deceived many rioters to believe Pence could change the election results to make Trump the victor.
An impressive list of officials. The entire apparatus of government, essentially, was telling Trump that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. And this is not just any government, but the officials he chose. They were telling him there was no fraud. And yet he kept saying there was fraud. Still says it, actually.
The list goes on. His campaign staff told him it was over. Officials like the governors in Georgia and Arizona told him there was no fraud in their states. Courts rejected every single lawsuit brought by Trump.
Specific lies. This list is interesting. These details get lost in people's memories over the course of a few years. But after Election Day, Trump and a few surrogates were seizing on multiple unsubstantiated claims in multiple states.
Transport back to November 2020.Here's CNN's story first published on November 14, 2020, when Trump put Giuliani in charge of legal efforts. It occurred after a cascading series of court losses and, according to the indictment, the day after it was clear to Trump's campaign that hope for his victory was lost.
The indictment accuses Trump at that point of executing a strategy of "knowing deceit" after Giuliani took over.
Trump's 2020 campaign manager. His name is Bill Stepien. Here's video of his testimony to the House January 6 committee, in which he described his campaign team, which accepted the election loss, as "team normal." By pushing conspiracy theories, Giuliani's team, according to Stepien, was not honest or professional.
The Arizona effort. We have known more about Trump's efforts to overturn results in Georgia because they were caught on tape. There is evidence from other states too, including this long set of facts about Arizona.
There's already so much testimony. The Arizona House speaker at the time was Rusty Bowers. He has already testified, before the House January 6 committee, about pressure put on him by Giuliani and Trump. Watch it.
On to Georgia. There could be a set of facts laid out in all seven states for which there was an attempt to create a fake slate of electors.
"Conspiracy shit." CNN's Katelyn Polantz notes: A senior adviser to Trump's 2020 campaign called claims of supposed voter fraud "conspiracy shit," according to the indictment.
The adviser was Jason Miller, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Miller's attorney declined to comment. Miller, identified as "Senior Campaign Advisor" throughout the indictment, also expressed frustration that many of the claims from Trump's legal team could not be substantiated.
"It's tough to own any of this when it's all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership," he said.
Trump's attack on Georgia officials. CNN's Marshall Cohen notes that Trump publicly attacked Georgia election officials even after his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, told him they were "conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion" and would find fraud if it existed, prosecutors say. This episode was included in the indictment as one of the many examples of how Trump tried to "get state officials to subvert the legitimate election results."
Election workers are suing Giuliani. Two Georgia election workers Trump mentioned by name are in the midst of suing Giuliani for defamation. He recently admitted he made defamatory statements about them.
Proving Trump knew. One can imagine that there will be a burden on prosecutors to prove definitively that he knew the fraud claims were wrong. Laced throughout the indictment are instances of people telling Trump the claims were inaccurate. There are also examples of his aides acknowledging it. But Trump is the defendant. Can it be proven that he knew? Does it matter?
Trump "lied" during infamous call. CNN's Marshall Cohen notes: On January 2, 2021, Trump "lied" to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger "to induce him" to overturn the election, prosecutors say in the indictment.
During that call, Trump urged Raffensperger to "find" the exact number of votes to flip the outcome and overturn his defeat in Georgia.
The indictment devotes nearly 500 words to the phone call and quotes Trump extensively. The indictment highlights how Trump "disparaged" election workers and "raised allegations" of voter fraud that had already been debunked by Georgia officials.
About Raffensperger. Despite standing up to Trump and defending his state's election, Raffensperger, a Republican, won reelection in 2022.
Related: Listen to the infamous call between Trump and Georgia election officials.
Or watch Raffensperger's testimony before the House January 6 committee.
On to Michigan. We've already noted the fake slate of electors is facing forgery charges there.
These are all Republicans standing up to Trump. It's worth noting that all of the people who stood up to Trump in real time, told him he had lost and then refused to help him overturn the results are all Republicans.
So far, at this point in the indictment, we've met Pence and Raffensperger. There's also the Georgia and Arizona governors and the Arizona House speaker. And here's Republican officials in Michigan — Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield — doing the same thing. Both men have since left office.
And yet! Trump remains the odds-on favorite to win the Republican presidential primary in 2024.
"Co-Conspirator 1." The role Giuliani played in applying pressure on officials across the country on Trump's behalf makes it interesting that he is not charged with any crime in this document.
Two types of people described in this document. There are those who are frustrated at losing but unwilling to destroy the system. And then there are the people accused of trying to sow enough doubt about the election and its results that they could overturn it.
"I fear we'd lose our country forever," Chatfield said, after rejecting Trump's request to overrule voters and recognize a slate of fake electors for Michigan.
Pattern repeating itself. There was a methodical pressure applied to Republican lawmakers in the states Trump wanted to contest.
Not exactly hiding this plot. The inclusion of a tweet is a reminder that Trump's pressure on Republicans was both public and private.
The next plan: Fake electors. Rebuffed by Republican lawmakers in key states, Trump is alleged to have moved to a plan to create a "fake controversy" at the January 6 electoral vote certification proceeding.
Trump used "dishonesty, fraud, and deceit." CNN's Zachary Cohen notes: The indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators effectively tricked individuals from seven targeted states into creating and submitting certificates asserting they were legitimate electors.
Prosecutors say Trump and co-conspirators made a strategic shift beginning in early December 2020 after they failed to convince state officials not to certify the correct results.
According to the indictment, "The plan capitalized on ideas presented in memoranda drafted by Co-Conspirator 5," who CNN has identified as pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro. The House select committee named Chesebro as the architect of the faker electors plot.
CNN first reported in January 2022 that the plan to put forward fake electors, with an eye toward January 6, was overseen by top Trump campaign officials and lawyers, including Giuliani.
Applying the scheme to multiple states. Expanding what had been envisioned as a safety move in Wisconsin to multiple states that Trump lost appears to have been a process that was ultimately coordinated by his campaign. He is described as keeping tabs on the developments.
It gets worse. Trump's campaign and Giuliani are described as going to great lengths to convince the fake electors to cast their fake electoral votes. The electors were not told about the plan to use their votes to create controversy on January 6.
Giuliani asked for a legal filing to be made in Arizona simply to create the illusion of an ongoing lawsuit with regard to the results. He told the fake electors in Pennsylvania their votes would only be used if Trump's lawsuits succeeded.
"Certifying illegal votes." While an email appears to confirm the intended use of the fake electors was to actually present them on January 6, Trump campaign officials who had the plan described to them were suspicious. These unnamed advisers couldn't "stand by it."
The Electoral College vote. It occurs in all 50 state capitals on the same day after Election Day. The votes are then sent to Washington and they are supposed to be counted on January 6. This is the process the indictment suggests Trump tried to scheme to interrupt.
"Six Contested States." New Mexico did not end up convening fake electors. Trump allies in the other states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — did.
Using the DOJ to create election controversy. This may be among the most damaging charges since Trump is alleged to have used the official weight of the Department of Justice to spin up false claims of election fraud.
Trump is described as meeting out of the chain of command with the DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, who is said to then have lied to the acting attorney general about what took place.
Trying to suggest legitimacy for fake electors. Clark is portrayed as all in on the fake elector scheme, trying to use DOJ stationery to acknowledge the fake electors' existence to key officials in the contested states.
Clark wouldn't quit. Despite being told by the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, not to contact Trump, the indictment alleges Clark continued to try to get Rosen to sign on to false claims of election fraud to give them legitimacy.
"That's why there's an Insurrection Act." The implication here is that Clark would have been prepared to use the US military to quell riots in the streets if Trump had been successful at overturning the election results.
Related: What is the Insurrection Act?
Leave it for "the next guy." If Trump is to be shown to have actually understood that he lost the election, this January 3 meeting could be a key bit of testimony. Here Trump is said to acknowledge to the top US general that it's too late for his presidency and that "the next guy," in six days, will not be him.
Moments later, however, a threat of mass resignation at DOJ. At his very next meeting, Trump discussed his plan to overturn the election results with officials at the Justice Department. He stood down on his plan to make Clark acting attorney general only to avoid mass resignations at both the DOJ and among his White House attorneys if he went through with it.
The effort to turn Pence. We know how this ends — with Pence doing his job to certify electoral votes. But the effort to change his mind was relentless.
Fight over executive privilege. CNN's Holmes Lybrand and Devan Cole note: The indictment includes new details about the interactions between Trump and Pence ahead of January 6, 2021 - insights that Smith likely gained after compelling the former vice president to testify following a protracted fight over executive privilege.
The fight over executive privilege ended this March when a federal judge ruled that Pence and several other former Trump aides would have to testify to the grand jury about their conversations with Trump. Pence testified before the grand jury in April.
In one conversation on January 1, 2021, Pence told Trump that he didn't think there was a constitutional basis for Trump's claims and that the vice president lacked the authority to change the results. "In response, the Defendant told the Vice President, 'You're too honest,'" according to the indictment.
"Riots in the streets." Warned that overturning the election with fake electors would lead to riots, the indictment alleges Eastman, who CNN has identified as "Co-Conspirator 2," seemed to justify that need by pointing to previous violence in US history. It's the second time a co-conspirator is said to endorse potentially putting down protesters frustrated at having the election results overturned.
More tweets. There is a lot of new information in this indictment. But the inclusion of these tweets is a reminder that the basic outline of this plot was being conducted in the open.
Pence's safety. After Trump became frustrated with Pence and threatened to publicly go after him, Pence's chief of staff, Marc Short, alerted the Secret Service that he was concerned about Pence's safety.
Senator tried to hand slate of fake electors to Pence. The senator in question could be Ron Johnson, of Wisconsin, according to text messages uncovered by the House January 6 committee.
Pressure even on the morning of January 6. Trump was calling Pence to pressure him to change his mind. The pressure continued in Giuliani's and Eastman's remarks to the rally outside the White House that preceded the march by Trump supporters on the Capitol. Here's video of the Giuliani/Eastman appearance at the rally.
Trump's words at rally used against him. These are excerpts of Trump's remarks to supporters at the rally outside the White House. The pressure was in private, with phone calls, and in public, with criticism in this televised speech. Here's video of Trump's remarks.
A transition to the riot at the Capitol. Most Americans probably remember the moment when they heard the Capitol was being stormed. Trump was watching, too, in the dining room next to the Oval Office.
How Trump put Pence in danger. CNN's Marshall Cohen notes: The indictment highlights how Trump put Pence in danger on January 6, 2021, and how members of the pro-Trump mob threatened to kill Pence.
These events transpired after Pence refused to throw out Biden's electoral votes and throw the election to Trump. Pence and his advisers had determined that this would have been unconstitutional, according to their past public statements.
Still trying to delay. Even after the riot, Trump and Giuliani were actively trying to delay certification of the election. CNN has previously reported on some of these phone calls and attempted phone calls, including to Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.
Trump refused to withdraw election certification objections. CNN's Tierney Sneed notes: In a phone call the evening of the January 6 Capitol riot, Trump refused a request from his then-White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to withdraw his objections and allow for Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
Conspiracy allegation. The indictment alleges Trump and his co-conspirators committed a conspiracy against the US as laid out in multiple paragraphs.
Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding. This the law related to interrupting Congress. Since Trump did not himself march on the Capitol, his words and actions will need to be shown to have inspired the insurrection.
"One or more persons." That's you. The indictment ends with the allegation that Trump violated every American's right to vote and have that vote counted. It's the most basic right enjoyed by Americans. And this is the most serious charge to make against a man who is again trying to lead every American.
Tags
Who is online
416 visitors
I agree wholeheartedly. I found the classified/top secret documents case and the evidence they detailed quite illuminating and very important but couldn't wait to read this indictment, which I finished reading earlier today.
Every single lie he told about fraud and dead voters and more votes than voters and every single lie was listed in the indictment - during the 'speech' on 1/6 - worded to the effect of 'knowing that he was lying and still publicly stating those lies' drove the 'protesters' to the Capitol.
Trump has a tendency to do reckless things that leave him open to litigation from his enemies. That cannot be denied. On the other hand, an AG with an ounce of integrity would pause and think a bit about the ramifications of actually bringing charges in such a case. The decision has been made months ago. The country will be torn apart and if Trump is ever re-elected, he will, as stated, play the same terrible game as the democrats. He will use the DOJ to go after every one of them.
after reading the indictment, anyone with an open mind can see the thorough job of investigation by the special prosecutor that led to it. although not named or charged, it looks to me like some members of congress will be heading towards a 2024 re-election campaign with a self inflicted and unique campaign issue to explain.
it's his duty to bring law breakers to justice...
the republicans in the senate should have considered that in trump's 2nd impeachment trial, and all of this could have been avoided...
Sounds like threats and witness intimidation to me!
'walking talking crime spree'
'abject criminality'
I think that is hilarious but very true
If he does become POTUS again he won't do indictments against his enemies. He'll take a page out of Putin's handbook and "disappear" them
Same here!
Not only his enemies, rational folks also.
The endless defense of the indefensible is mind boggling and stupefying.
It's true, they're a cult, a braindead cult defending a monster
1. The country is already torn apart.
2. His "game" goes far beyond what Democrats have done.
3. You seem to be approving of Trump's attempt to extort our system of justice by threatening them.
4. Yesterday Trump said he will "go after" everyone who has gone after him. That is a violation of his pre trial release. The release should be revoked and he should be put in jail, today.
I agree about his being thrown in jail for that outburst but do you think it will happen?
He still has freedom of speech, no matter how distasteful. This is simply election interference by Trump's enemies and an ongoing deflection from Biden's illegal activities such as bribery, influence peddling, and money laundering, among other things.
One can only wonder at what kind of media you consume.
Criminal conspiracy is not protected free speech...
Criminal conspiracy has to be proven in a court of law.
And, I believe the added term to that is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".
Think it'll happen???? Nahhhhh.
And yet, the witnesses giving testify against Trump in these new January 6th indictments are all gop Trumpist insiders...
Yeah, Greg, we all know how it works. Apparently you do not comprehend JBB's point that the charge is conspiracy, et. al. and that one cannot use free speech as a defense.
In your opinion, should Trump be found guilty, at least to some degree, of the counts in this indictment? Or do you believe that he should be found not guilty on all counts?
His freedom of speech is not in question. You clearly have no clue about this indictment. Get educated.
You are trying to defend Trump by challenging charges that have not been made and ignoring the actual facts. Given you have to resort to intellectual dishonesty to defend Trump, what motivates you to do so?
You follow the talking points quite well.
None of this alters the fact that I'm still required to choose between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Trump is the better choice than Biden.
Biden wants to run against Trump. Give Biden what he wants. Let Biden defend himself against Trump, if he can. Republicans can focus on electing a Vice President who will become the President. You know, if Trump is sworn in as President then he's done. Trump can never run again. And Trump can be removed the day after he's sworn in. So, for the 2024 election the Vice Presidency matters as much as the Presidency.
Rabbit hole rationalism ... Flatland devolving into Pointland. Yikes!
Trump is a better choice than Biden. That's not a rationalization.
Why should I believe Trump could remain in office if he wins the election? As I stated, a Trump win means its over for Trump. Trump would no longer be politically useful to either Democrats or Republicans. Republicans wouldn't have an incentive to keep Trump in office unless the VP is worse than Kamala Harris.
Democrats want Trump then so be it. Let Democrats defend themselves against Trump. Democrats are stuck with Biden and Harris so there's not much Democrats can do. Republicans should focus their attention on who replaces Trump. That's the Republican sell point to independents.
No, it means he gets 4 more years to play Captain Ahab and to channel his favorite dictators. The problem with Trump is that he views America as being Moby Dick.
So what? Trump is already indefensible and I don't need to waste my time. That doesn't change that Trump is a better choice than Biden.
You do realize that Biden is protecting the legacy of Ronnie Raygun. As far as Biden is concerned, the Obama Presidency didn't happen. The major issues during the Reagan Presidency were Russia, Iran, abortion, immigration, energy, and globalization. With Biden it has been deja vu all over again.
For whom is Trump preferable to Biden?
Who does Putin fear would use nuclear weapons? So far, Putin hasn't been afraid of anything Biden would do. Even Putin reportedly expressed concerns about Trump's 'understanding' of nuclear weapons.
Putin waited until Biden took office before 'threatening the free world'. Why is that? Why would Putin think he could win with Biden in office instead of Trump?
Your insider views on the Kremlin are really quite insightful but are immaterial regarding our 2024 Presidential election. Putin knows Trump would surrender on Ukraine his first day back in office...
You posted the springtime tourist photo. Didn't you take the tour? Didn't you make the pilgrimage to the tomb of the left's hero?
I'm not the one supporting the Kremlin's candidate for 2024...
I thought you wanted to fight Trump the same way you wanted to fight Russia. It's an easy win, isn't it? How's that goin' for ya?
Nope...
Doing a lot of work for Xi's though.
You make no sense but then neither do any of the former 'president's' enablers/supporters.
This is monumentally stupid. Putin attacked when he was ready to attack. If Trump had been president during Putin’s attack, Ukraine would likely be part of Russia now. When Putin attacked, Trump referred to it as ‘genius’ because Putin declared that he was making Ukraine independent. Trump has always kowtowed to Putin.
Biden blunted Putin’s propaganda right from the start and rallied the free world to support Ukraine. Can anyone even imagine a moron like Trump rallying the free world? When Trump says he would end the war in a day, he means he would try to force the Ukrainians to give up however much of their country it would take to please Putin. There’s no deal there even if the US withholds weapons, the Ukrainians are what weekend ‘patriots’ here pretend to be.
GWB screwed up when he allowed Putin to annex 20% of Georgia without consequences, and Obama screwed up when he allowed Putin to take Crimea without consequences. The US needed to lead on those occasions, had we done so, we wouldn’t be where we are now. Biden led.
So, you adamantly claim that Putin would have benefitted from invading Ukraine while Trump was in office. Trump would have allowed Putin to annex Ukraine, after all. Trump was incapable of rallying the world against Putin. Trump would have allowed Putin to do as Putin wished.
Yet the facts do not align with your fiction. Putin thought he could win with Joe Biden in the White House instead of Trump. The facts are that for six months Biden shouted to the world that Russia was going to invade Ukraine and that US troops would not be fighting in Ukraine. Biden's Pentagon did tuck tail and run out of Ukraine before Putin's troops crossed the border. Biden deliberately invited Putin to invade Ukraine to avoid having to sit at the negotiating table.
Biden used economics as a weapon of war just as did GWB and Barack Obama. Sanctions are the weapon of choice for neoliberals. Wars do allow the rich to become richer. Or are Biden's supporters unwilling to quote Eisenhower because it would threaten their profits?
Why was Biden afraid to negotiate with Russia as Trump did in Syria and Iraq? Trump made a deal with Russia to protect the Kurds and avoid a direct confrontation between the United States and Turkey. Comparing Biden's and Trump's dealings with Russia suggests that Trump would have found a way to avoid the Russian invasion. Trump had already prodded NATO to increase military spending and preparedness. Biden in true neoliberal fashion only exploited the investments that Trump had forced NATO to make.
Biden took the necessary steps to make war inevitable. The facts are Biden threw Ukraine into the fire just to score political points and allow Biden's rich buddies to become richer.
I simply pointed out that Trump sided with Putin, even over US intelligence. During his presidency, Trump always praised Putin, and he continues to do so. Putin's actions in Ukraine make him unequivocally a war criminal, still admirable in Trump's eyes. Trump has cheated on all of his wives with prostitutes. He has done business in Russia, so we can safely assume there were prostitutes involved there. The Russians undoubtedly have lots of compromising shit on him -- collecting that sort of stuff is Russian SOP.
It didn’t matter who was in the White House. The West has been indicating it would take no action since 2009 — see next paragraph. The Pentagon does have people in Ukraine -- who do you think is managing our transfer of weapons and war logistics there?
We, the West, did fuck-all about Putin’s invasion of Georgia or seizure of Crimea. That’s why we have a War in Ukraine.
Trump abandoned the Kurds after a call with authoritarian Viktor Orban. Our soldiers were sickened by this betrayal — done to please an authoritarian soul-mate.
Your post is a fever dream.
And I'm pointing out that it would have been to Putin's advantage to invade while Trump was in office since Trump sides with Russia. But that is not what happened. Putin thought he could win with Biden in office instead of Trump. That's not speculation; that's what happened.
Also keep in mind that Ukraine has Biden on a string with payola. Ukraine tried to get dirt on Trump with their spy in the White House but the Ukrainian orchestrated impeachment failed.
The Kurds seemed happy with the agreement. The only way for the United States to protect the Kurds would have been to directly confront Turkey. As a member of NATO, Turkey could have called for invoking Article 5 against the United States. The United States protecting the Kurds would have split NATO.
Bingo.
Biden is riding a rising economic tide and whooping Putin's ass so there is zero chance Americans are going to elect Trump again...
Maybe so. But Biden hasn't had to defend himself against Trump. Biden won't escape unscathed. So, the outcome isn't that certain. And Biden does have a tendency to fuck himself.
I'm being told, with certainty, that Donald Trump is leading the Republican field and will be the Republican nominee. Trump is a better choice than Biden. Since the Republican nomination has already been decided, I can vote today; the election is already over as far as I'm concerned.
Except Biden defended himself against Trump quite admirably in 2020 and is serving honorably and capably. Trump is a big loser...
Biden wasn't President in 2020. Biden didn't have anything to defend.
No, Trump was the incumbent President with all the benefits thereof and yet Biden whooped him quite handily. Biden's Presidency has already been more successful than Trump's was and none of the swing states Biden won trend gop...
What swing states could Trump win that Biden won in 2020?
I expect Biden will win by twenty million votes in the rematch!
The Dems are going to shove Biden out of the way, there is no way he can survive another election campaign.
That is not going to happen. All of the serious Democratic contenders from 2020 will support Biden's reelection, plus Bidenomics is becoming more successful as time goes by.
Biden's lead is growing in the swing state he won in 2020!
The gop will nominate Trump. Biden will win his 2nd term.
He remains flat and underwater.
I wish. That said, I doubt you have anything to back that up. While I would like your bullshit to be true, I suspect it is just more bullshit like your earlier attempts to defend Trump.
An admission of blind partisanship.
No, your hero loser, the former 'president' likes to fuck himself and so obviously do his supporters/enablers.
Braindead morons
Sounds like his enablers/supporters as well to a T.
In 2016, I did not want Clinton or Trump in the White House and, essentially, wasted my vote as a protest. The press only reported the votes for Clinton and Trump; the protest votes, like mine, certainly didn't make it into the news reporting. So, choosing someone other than the two really bad alternatives didn't accomplish a thing. I could ride a self righteous high horse and smugly tell everyone I didn't vote for whoever was elected.
Voting for a third party candidate won't do any more than not voting at all. People who are unwilling to vote for the Democrat or Republican have been disenfranchised. Our political system is so rigged that for our votes to count, we must vote for either a Democrat or Republican. The rigged political system necessitates voting for the lesser of two evils. The two party political system doesn't provide good choices; the system is predisposed to reward the worst among us because absolute power corrupts absolutely.
From my perspective the country fared better while Trump was in office than it has while Biden has been in office. Since I must choose between Trump and Biden and I can compare how the country fared with both as President, I choose Trump. Trump's America really was better than Biden's America.
You use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
Do you know what an opinion is? Mine is based on several relevant factors, not the least of which is his poll numbers and his frail condition and worsening dementia.
I don't defend Trump, all I attempt to do here is to get you to prove (back up) your allegations against him, and to keep the discussion going.
You need me to prove the allegations against Trump before you recognize wrongdoing?
You need proof that he lied that the USA electoral system was rigged and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS?
And as for the indictment, you need me to prove that the counts in the indictment are true before you even acknowledge that Trump has done wrong?
You are playing the same, truly dumb, partisan game of demanding proof as a feeble and obvious deflection rather than acknowledge wrongdoing. Was it wrong for Trump to lie that he won and that the election was rigged? Prove it! Did Trump knowingly hold classified documents and not cooperate on their return? Prove it! Did Trump coordinate seven states to produce fake electors? Prove it! Did Trump attempt to suborn Pence to toss out certified votes to force consideration of his fake electors? Prove it!
When people like you refuse to acknowledge even the most basic wrongdoings of Trump and instead merely demand proof (not evidence: proof), you are illustrating that you have no argument and that your position is that of blind partisanship.
If you think that is impressive or persuasive, think again.
I think your logic is sound except for this. You presume that the good during Trump's term was a result of Trump. Thus you will actually vote to put this miserable, lying sack of shit narcissist back in office because you think the good economy, etc. prior to COVID was a result of Trump.
The only reason Trump has power today is because people like you can be counted on to vote for him.
the last part sums all of the rest up
Well, it is possible to connect things done by the Trump administration with positive benefits for the country. The charge of narcissism is phony bogus considering that Biden claims credit for everything (including Trump's good things).
Really? And exactly how did Biden claim the White House?
If people had not voted for Trump then Hillary Clinton would have become President. The country dodged a bullet with Trump. Without Trump the country would have been in deep trouble. We've seen how Biden has advocated, promoted, and enacted the Democrat's agenda and we've seen the result. Biden's America is not better than Trump's America. There's a real record for comparison and Trump has the better record.
pee wee herman school of debate...
I try my best. It is worth it if I can educate our readers.
How does speculation educate readers?
If you want to educate people, deliver solid evidence / facts wrapped in sound logic.
Wrong again! The idea is to question things and ideas.
I'm willing to take questions.
Raising questions based on sound evidence and facts is helpful.
You did not offer a question nor did you provide any evidence, you offered a political joke.
That is not education, it is partisan propaganda. Learn the difference.
That is what is needed in higher education today.
You did not offer a question nor did you provide any evidence, you offered a political joke.
Which you took offense at.
That is not education, it is partisan propaganda.
It is?
I criticized your claim that your political joke was education.
Yes. Deliver supporting evidence and logic rather than leap to: "Biden is guilty of taking foreign money for services rendered based on his political position.". That would be valuable.
As our little ringleader likes to say: "Don't put words in my mouth!"
I am the first one to admit that it sucks our public servants wives and kids and assorted friends and family members can and do legally profit from their proximity and access to powerful office holders. Supreme Court Chief Justices John Roberts' and Clarence Thomas's wives hold down multiple highly compensated seats on major corporate boards. The same goes on all the way down the line to our state representative and county commissioners, mayors and assemblymen. Hell, the President of the school board's kids have advantages. It sucks and it stinks but it is still basically legal here in The Land of Opportunity!
The exact people who are hair on fire outraged about Hunter selling dubious prestige and the illusion of influence to Burisma studiously ignore that Jared and Ivanka made a thousand times more off their Trump World connections while holding paid official White House positions advising the President and making real decisions. Meghan McCain and Jenna Bush did not get prime network gigs for being the prettiest, smartest and most talented. They saw opportunities and took them! What are we supposed to do about it?
Who is your little ringleader?
The student who surpassed the 'teacher'?
Okay, Vic, what do you think your cartoon connotes other than: "Biden is guilty of taking foreign money for services rendered based on his political position.".
Vic's cartoon went one step further. It claims that Joe Biden himself knowingly took foreign money in collusion with Hunter Biden.
I hope you aren't referring to the student who got an F for promoting a false story from the McClatchy Report? The one who got herself expelled with an ultimatum?
What an outrageous idea that is / S
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Because you do that all the time
It's seems that the House Oversite Committee has moved a small mountain. We have now gone from who cares what Hunter did to Hunter did it without Joe being involved.
You know, the story that placed Michael Cohen in Prague. That was the hill she died on.
I had to give her an F
It is not outrageous; it could be true. But you present it as fact. Your cartoon connotes to: "Biden is guilty of taking foreign money for services rendered based on his political position.".
You are attempting to deny the obvious.
Not I. The one sitting on Rohobath Beach.
Again . . . . .
And again..
same answer
you make no sense
Never be afraid to ask questions.
who was the legitimate and lawful winner of the 2020 presidential election?
Think while it's still legal...
Words of wisdom.
Delivered quite surprisingly by the person whom I am from now on calling Richard. Since I am not overly enamored of typing on this little digi-lator, I will shorten it to Dick.
As fitting as this name change may seem for other and probably pertinent reasons, it stems from a desire to test the limits of free speech. Dick, it seems, wishes to address certain people in a way that these people find to be less than polite, but she is bound and determined that she calls them as she sees them. So, if she determines them to be a certain pronoun, then that is what they are called. This is supposedly her right to do. I guess that she is correct. I, therefore, am also within my rights to decide to use the pronoun "her" and the name "Dick" to refer to the person to whom this reply goes.
With that rather long forward: I am thinking, and it is good. Dick.
In what braindead cult world is that walking talking crime spree worthless POS worthless excuse of a human being a better choice than President Biden?
I'm betting jack smith is working on a third strike indictment for trump after georgia indicts him...
wire fraud.
trump's criminal legacy will dog his defective spawn for decades after he's gone...
Surely you will have the same opinion if Joe is found guilty of a crime if and when indicted s/
The sooner the better . . .
Does that tie in with the RICO charges?
How many times has RICO been used?
We've never had a walking talking crime spree as a former 'president' before.
Someone like #45, who is guilty of abject criminality
Yup, 78 counts worth and being prosecuted by people who campaigned on getting him ... somehow ...someway!
You do not recognize that Trump’s actions are the reason for his Jan 6th and classified documents indictments?
[Deleted]
Y does a simple totally pertinent question, dig holes in earth for you and others to get foamed at the mouth and chase rabid rabies down , whileskinning your knees whilst rabbity rabbis with scabbity scabies abounds, ?
[deleted]
imperial president defense...
the georgia indictment will use RICO. willis is an expert in it's use.
georgia indictment is imminent.
>boom<
trumpsters to the dumpsters...
LOL
Amazing. It's a fairly long, detailed article, and yet I find nothing new. I make no effort to read about Trump's legal mess... but it seems to permeate the ether. Trump news is an inescapable miasma.
So why do the Dems want to televise the tedious trial of it comes to that.
to help keep the trumpster scum media from exercising their 1st amendment right to lie about it...
Trump will be a clown in court, so I'd guess the Dems would like the whole world to see that.