Brooks, a Republican who represented an Alabama district in Congress until last year, told reporters that the former President had entreated him to help overturn the 2020 election as recently (or as late) as September 2021. He asserts,
“Donald Trump wanted me to do four things: advocate rescinding the election, advocate physically removing Joe Biden from the White House, advocate reinstating Donald Trump as president of the United States and advocate a new special election for president of the United States — all of which violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law. And after I got done explaining that to him, he withdrew his endorsement and endorsed my opponent. So I’m mildly surprised none of these people have made inquiries about the details of this, but it is what it is.”
Brooks says he is surprised that he hasn’t been asked to give evidence to prosecutor Jack Smith, currently running one of the many Democratic “Get Trump!” operations.
Observations:
1. I don’t doubt Brooks especially: his account sounds completely plausible. It doesn’t prove anything either.
2. If Trump really believed that the 2020 election had been corrupted, fixed and “stolen,” regardless of whether such a belief was reasonable, seeking to use his power as President to undo it and seek the remedies Brooks describes would not necessarily be illegal and unconstitutional. The President is sworn to protect the Constitution, and a stolen Presidential election would sufficiently undermine its principles to require Presidential action. That would be a question of first impression for the Supreme Court.
3. There is nothing illegal about Trump asking an official to “advocate” anything. If it could have been determined that the election had been stolen, I would advocate rescinding the election, removing Joe Biden from the White House, and holding a special election. Installing Trump would be wrong and dangerous: horrible as the prospect would be, the Speaker of the House would have to serve as interim POTUS until the election were held. Again, the Supreme Court would need to provide guidance.
4. Trump punishing Brooks for resisting his plan is politics, that’s all. It also calls into question Brook’s biases against Trump, which colors the credibility of his account.
5. Nevertheless, Brooks’ tale should make rational Trump supporters leery of placing Trump back in power. Virtually all of his conduct since his defeat already demonstrate beyond question that he cannot be trusted, and no matter how wrongly Trump has been treated, or how thoroughly his political foes have scarred democracy in their determination to undermine and destroy him, he is still irresponsible and untrustworthy to an extent that should disqualify him from not just the Presidency, but any high elected office.
Ethics Alarms 
But what’s the alternative? Four more years of this incompetence? Eventually we are going to reach the point where there are only going to be two choices on the menu. Those choices may well be four more years of Biden stumbling and bumbling, if he lives to make it that far, or giving Trump his second term. Whether that should be the case or not, it may well be the case. At that point, what do you do?
I prefer Desantis. But if Trump is the option in 2024, I won’t feel as bad voting for him as I did in 2020 or as bad I did voting for neither candidate in 2016.
Yes, the bias is obvious and the timing suspect.
Why didn’t Brooks come forward with this information in 2021? Perhaps having lost his traction with Trump, after being such a strong Trump supporter in the House, he might now be smelling blood in the political water and is trying to align/rehabilitate himself with the anyone-but-Trump elements in the GOP. I’d say anyone with an axe to grind with Trump will be piling on from this point forward.
How is the bias obvious? Are you just defining any criticism of Trump as bias against him?
And why he didn’t come forward with this in 2021 is obvious; back then it looked like Trump was going to get away with all of this. Now it looks like he might not.
He was strongly supportive Trump, then he lost Trump’s endorsement. In my experience working in local and state campaigns, politics has no fury like an acolyte scorned. I have no problem with criticizing Trump, but a veiled accusation of criminal acts is a bit more than just “criticism,” wouldn’t you agree? As far as Trump not getting away with “all this,” it still remains for “all this” to be proven in court rather than only in the wet dreams of the Left.
More likely is that he kept his mouth shut to keep getting those endorsements, and now feels there is no reason to do so.
In addition, “all this” has to be illegal in the first place.
That grand jury was wrong to indict Rick Perry.
“2. If Trump really believed that the 2020 election had been corrupted, fixed and “stolen,” regardless of whether such a belief was reasonable, seeking to use his power as President to undo it and seek the remedies Brooks describes would not necessarily be illegal and unconstitutional.”
Huh? Whether it’s illegal or unconstitutional has to do with the reality of Trump’s election claims, not whether he believes them. If the election was not corrupted, fixed, or stolen, then those remedies are illegal and unconstitutional. And it wasn’t, so they are.
With Rudy Giulani now admitting to making false claims targeting two election workers and a January 6th-related indictment on the way, it will only become clearer how unreasonable the stolen election narrative always was.
“Huh? Whether it’s illegal or unconstitutional has to do with the reality of Trump’s election claims, not whether he believes them.”
Wow. Incredibly wrong. The President is empowered to act when he believes such action is necessary to protect the Constitution. He is not required to be proven correct. There are too many examples of this in US history to list, and, frankly, that should be obvious. We elect Presidents and therefore trust in their judgment about such matters. If they prove wrong, we vote against them. Until Trump’s term had expired, his duty to protect the nation and the Constitution as he saw it remained.
Your standard would result in an emasculated Presidency. That may be what you want, but it is not what the standards, law and traditions of the office currently involve.
He wants an emasculated presidency when it’s a Republican president. He wants a super-powerful presidency when it’s a Democratic president. After all, the latter kind is the only legitimate kind. I’m guessing he was among those folks ranting that the Senate should be required to hold an up-or-down vote on a presidential nominee within 60 days or it would be deemed to have waived its right to advise and consent and the nominee would be considered confirmed…while it was Obama doing the nominating. When it was GWB, not so much, and when it was Trump, not at all.
You’re literally making up a guy to get mad at. But if the best comparison you can make to Trump trying to remain in office past his term in defiance of the will of the people…is that nitty-gritty stuff about the advise and consent rule…I can see why you need to argue with strawmen. One is about the fundamental existence of our democracy, the other is relative trivia. But sure, Democrats are worse.
“If they prove wrong, we vote against them.”
Except that if a president is empowered to do what Trump tried to do here, voting against them won’t matter. He can just say he doesn’t believe he lost, and then nothing he does to stay in power is unconstitutional!
Wrong again. He is empowered to do what is necessary to IF the election was stolen. If that cannot be proved, then he has no options. If it is proved, then most of what he was advocating would be appropriate steps in addressing the problem. Obviously he has no power to preemptively do any of those things before the election has been conclusively shown to be corrupt. Maybe that’s what Brooks meant; my point is only that what Trump wanted Brooks to advocate were not inherently illegal or unconstitutional.
That’s different from what you said earlier:
“The President is empowered to act when he believes such action is necessary to protect the Constitution. He is not required to be proven correct.”
Now you’re saying it does need to be proven.
This is the kind of dishonest gotcha that will get you banned if you keep trying it. If the corruption of the election hasn’t occurred, then the President has no power or authority to do anything. If he believes it has been corrupted, he is empowered to investigate or find out the truth. Obviously, the steps I outlined only applied to the situation where the Constitution was in fact in peril, in which case, the measure Trump was pushing would NOT have been illegal. That’s what I know, that’s what I wrote.
Sorry—I genuinely misunderstood, and I still think it was written in a confusing way. But I take your point.
I still don’t agree that many of the specific actions Trump was advocating were constitutional. For example, there is nothing in the constitution suggesting the VP can refuse to certify the votes. That would be a horrible precedent to set, since a VP would obviously want to stay in power and this would be wide open for abuse in every election. I also don’t think that what he wanted Meadows to advocate was constitutional.
So what would be the constitutional process for removing a president who won only due to massive fraud? I don’t know; it’s never happened before, and thankfully, did not happen in 2020 despite Trump’s claims. (And it’s worth noting that Trump planned to claim this no matter what the evidence showed.)
I also don’t know if Trump’s suggestions (or demands, or whatever they turn out to be) themselves violated the law or Constitution, or were protected speech. Again, we’ve never had to deal with a president doing this kind of thing before. And while I’m curious to see if he’s indicted for J6-related crimes (and hopeful that a precedent is set making this behavior clearly unlawful, so it doesn’t happen again), I think the debate over whether these were legal violations misses the forest for the trees in a way. Regardless of whether he technically broke the law, his actions were disgraceful, dangerous, and interfered with the normal and typically dignified transition of power Americans are used to. Trump did not even attend Biden’s inauguration (not even close to illegal, just unethical). While I can see good arguments for arguing that his conduct from Election Day to J6 and beyond didn’t technically violate any laws, I don’t think there is any good argument against the proposition that we can’t let someone like this anywhere near the presidency again.
For example, there is nothing in the constitution suggesting the VP can refuse to certify the votes.
I wrote that already. Pence knew it, everyone knew it but some wacko lawyer who Trump listened to
A stolen Presidential election would require LEGAL Presidential action…not illegal action like asking a President to be physically removed from office before it’s proven in court that he wasn’t truly elected.
There is nothing illegal about Trump asking an official to “advocate” anything…unless it’s solicitation of a crime.
“I would advocate rescinding the election, removing Joe Biden from the White House”
This would be illegal if you wanted Biden to be removed from office without first going through the proper legal channels first.
It would be like you saying you want your wife’s murderer to be put in jail, but instead of wanting your wife’s murderer to be tried in criminal court and be found guilty, you decide to ask your cop buddy to kidnap the murderer and throw them in jail.
Are you intentionally misreading what I wrote? IF the election were in fact stolen, and that would mean proven to be stolen, then 1) the results would have to be canceled; 2) a new election would have to take place, and 3) Biden would not be able to act as President. That’s what I wrote. I did not say that the belief that the election was stolen by a President would justify any of that.
Okay so do we agree Trump tried to get people to overturn the election without proving it first and by using the proper, legal channels i.e., the courts?
He was using the Courts. He was seeking support for a method to freeze the process while the Courts backed him up—like the process was frozen during Bush v. Gore in 2000 until SCOTUS (correctly) ended the dispute. He tried to persuade officials to support his plan which, in the absence of a smoking gun and a definitive court ruling was impossible and illegal. If by “people” you mean the public, no, because protesting is 100% protected, and the public doesn’t have the power or means to overturn an election—it’s a Republic: onlt their elected representatives can do that.
Trump was perusing two avenues to overturn the election results. Bringing cases before the court that lacked any actual evidence that showed he actually won the election or that there was election fraud, and trying to get other people to illegally remove Biden from office before having to win in court.
The idea is that Trump was attempting to persuade these politicians to commit federal election crimes, thereby bypassing the courts and not having to prove there is a legitimate reason to remove a sitting President from office by having a new election or what have you.
What were these election. crimes?
And why would this not be justified as payback for the whole “Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” investigation?
How can payback possibly be unethical?
“How can payback possibly be unethical?”
Wow.
Again, you don’t belong within a thousand virtual feet of an ethics blog.
Sigh.
There are a lot of articulate, smart regulars here who have real trouble with that concept.
I try.
He wasn’t just using the courts, though (and some of his lawyers, such as Rudy and Jenna Ellis, have conceded that they forwarded known falsehoods to the court). He tried to convince Mike Pence to refuse to certify the votes. Had Pence done so, that would almost certainly have been considered obstructing an official government proceeding. Thankfully, Pence knew better. But that still leaves us with Trump potentially soliciting such a violation. Whether that ends up being a crime he’s charged with I am unclear on, but it isn’t ridiculous to think it’s a crime.
Ugh. “Trying to convince Mike Pence” isn’t an act, it’s a conversation. And he might as well have been trying to convince Mike Pence to lay an egg. Pence is a dim bulb, but even he could see that he didn’t have the power to do what Trump was suggesting.
“Trying to convince Mike Pence” isn’t an act, it’s a conversation”
No offense, but this is nonsensical. It’s both an act and a conversation. You can have an illegal conversation with someone if you’re trying to persuade them to do something illegal.
Absolutely untrue. Virtually nobody is prosecuted for a mere conversation, and in the few times it has been tried, it fails. White’s Houses, virtually all of them, have been filled with POTUSes saying, “I think we could do this, and advisors saying, “Sorry, that’s a terrible idea.” In only Trump’s case has that theory even been floated.
The conversation can not be illegal, as it was a petition to the government for the redress of grievances.
A stolen Presidential election would require LEGAL Presidential action…not illegal action like asking a President to be physically removed from office before it’s proven in court that he wasn’t truly elected.
There is nothing illegal about Trump asking an official to “advocate” anything…unless it’s solicitation of a crime.
“I would advocate rescinding the election, removing Joe Biden from the White House”
This would be illegal if you wanted Biden to be removed from office without first going through the proper legal channels first.
It would be like you saying you want your wife’s murderer to be put in jail, but instead of wanting your wife’s murderer to be tried in criminal court and be found guilty, you decide to ask your cop buddy to kidnap the murderer and throw them in jail.
It strikes me that part of why we all seem to be talking past each other here is because we really don’t *know* if Trump’s actions surrounding January 6th were illegal…and that’s at least partly because they’ve never happened before.
I’ve no doubt that Jack could find many examples of presidents pushing their constitutional authority to the limit…but there are no examples of a president trying to stay in office past his term, to the point of demanding his VP refuse to certify the votes.
I guess we’re about to find out whether what he did was illegal. I won’t pretend to know for sure that it is. I will say that unless we want every fourth January 6th to be like the one in 2020, or worse, we had all better *hope* these actions are proven illegal. Because if there are no consequences for doing what Trump did, nothing is stopping future presidents from doing the same, until all confidence in our democratic system is lost and we become another banana republic. Do you want Kamala Harris to single-handedly determine who the next president is? I don’t.
That, by itself, establishes reasonable doubt.
Of course it does. Which is why I expect a very narrow indictment from Smith’s office, tailored only to what he believes he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even so, solicitation has to be narrowly defined.
Here is the First Amendment, part of the supreme law of the land.
To merely ask for something, even beyond the legal authority of the government, can not be solicitation of a crime.
“Your honor, I merely asked my friend to kill my wife!”
There is quite a difference between a friend and a government official.
Neither your friend nor an government official has the right to stop a president from being inaugurated, so not seeing the difference in this context.
The First Amendment expressly protects petitioning the government.
Petitioning a government official is expressly protected by the First Amendment.
The crime/issue isn’t that Trump thought the election was rigged/stolen. The crime/issue is that he tried, not only with no credible evidence, to overturn the results through illegal means.
It would be like thinking your wife is wrongly put on trial for a murder, and then you try to bribe the jury. Oh, and then you find out your wife actually did kill someone.
Ryan
Your analogy is flawed. Whether Trump sought others to advocate an idea on his behalf is a non-issue when on January 20, 2021 Trump left DC and Biden was sworn in. There is no evidence, other than the same type of challenges Democrats have employed in every presidential election since 2000, that he facilitated any activity that prevented Biden assuming office.
To suggest Trump actually violated the law is at best presumptive and based on what we know today we could argue that the FBI conspired with a variety of state actors to create the impression Trump was a tool of Putin or that his principal opponent in 2020 had his allies suppress information regarding potential bribery and extortion activities, money laundering or influence pedaling by Biden family with respect to both Ukraine and China.
Finally to suggest he had no evidence of election anomalies is incorrect. In Pennsylvania, the Secretary of State violated the state constitution by changing election rules that were supposed to be made by the legislature. The Democrat controlled legislature did not challenge the secretary and the elected state Supreme Court controlled by Democrats ruled against his legal team. Other states ruled Trump had no standing because they claimed he was not harmed only the residents of the state had standing. This claim that there was no evidence of manipulating the process is just wrong. What can be said is Trump could not prevail in the needed states where the courts made rulings that favored Democrats.
Chris, the PA legislature was controlled by Republicans at that time, not Democrats.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/pa-election-reform-deal-20191023.html
Objections to rule changes in an election should come before the election, not after. Seeking to throw out votes that were already cast and considered legal at the time is called voter disenfranchisement.
Trump didn’t lose because of any kind of voter irregularities. He lost because he was historically unpopular and didn’t seem to be taking seriously the worst national crisis in decades. Americans wanted a return to normalcy and a president they didn’t have to hear about every day. Trump then worsened his own odds by holding superspreader rallies and giving advice that endangered his own supporters, including telling them not to vote by mail—then acted surprised when Biden got more mail-in votes. It was, to be quite honest, the worst campaign I’ve ever seen. And refusing to acknowledge this in favor of conspiracy theories just means Republicans have no incentive to change course, which will only ensure further losses.
As for the dreaded Russiagate, the people primarily responsible for creating the impression that Trump was a tool of Russia were Trump and several members of his campaign, most notably his son whose response to an offer of dirt on Hillary from people who said they worked for the Russian government was “If it’s what you say it is, I love it.” This doesn’t excuse unethical or illegal conduct on the part of some FBI agents, most notably those who forged emails regarding Carter Page (who overnight went from one of the most suspicious Russia-connected Trump officials to one of the least), or the media who hyped up the lurid and unverified Steele dossier, but it also means you can’t discredit the whole investigation, which the Trump campaign’s actions made necessary.
You done, or you think there’s more of the Democrat party line we haven’t heard? Seriously, if we wanted to hear this crap we’d just click over to democraticunderground or dailykos.
I get that you don’t what to hear the other side, especially when you can’t come up with any rebuttals to it. Lots of people prefer safe spaces. If Jack wants this to be safe space I’ll respect that and leave, but I’m not going to do that on your account.
No safe space. Just bring something new to the table.
I wouldn’t know what’s considered “new” here. I’m doing my best to bring facts when I see inaccuracies and respond to what I see as flawed talking points with rational analysis. If you dispute any of what I say you are free to show how what I’m saying is false or irrational, instead of relying purely on snark (which I was told wasn’t allowed).
I don’t see you hammering on people for old and discredited talking points from the right, like Chris’s “Biden didn’t have big campaign events during the height of the Covid pandemic, so how could he have won?” argument, so your objection isn’t to arguments being old or silly, it’s to them being arguments from the left.
The whole investigation is discredited, just as Wanetta Gibson was discredited.
If you say so!
Technically, the Democrat Attorney General would file such a challenge and while the republicans had majorities in both chamber they could not override the governors vetos. Nonetheless the legislature abdicated its responsibility and the elected state Supreme Court was unwilling to hear Trump’s legal teams arguments.
We know the FBI and the Obama administration knew that the Steele dossier was fabricated for the HRC campaign and false. Trump did not help his cause with some of his statements that were used effectively by misrepresenting facts to convince easily duped people of him being a racist or a Nazi. The media portrayed him negatively at every turn. Trump was not universally hated because he got more votes in 2020 than 2016. It was rather unusual for Biden who could not draw any significant crowds when he did leave his basement but then was able to get more votes than even his old boss Obama.
Finally, the DNC sent teams of lawyers to challenge elections laws all over the country to ensure states sent blank ballots out to every voter during Covid and challenged every voter ID regulation. I don’t have the inclination to go over facts that have have been written about here ad nauseam.
Nicely put, Chris!
“We know the FBI and the Obama administration knew that the Steele dossier was fabricated for the HRC campaign and false.”
No, you don’t know that, because it isn’t true. They knew it was commissioned by the campaign and that its claims were unverified (typical for a raw intelligence document), but that’s not the same as “fabricated,” which wrongly implies that Steele made the whole thing up, and it hadn’t been proven “false” yet.
And it doesn’t really matter anyway, because the Steele dossier played very little part in the investigation, and was not the trigger for it.
“It was rather unusual for Biden who could not draw any significant crowds when he did leave his basement but then was able to get more votes than even his old boss Obama.”
Biden was not trying to “draw crowds” during the 2020 campaign, and you know exactly why, unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past three years. As I already alluded to, Biden’s lack of superspreader events was a key reason voters trusted him more than Trump on the issue of Covid, which was a huge issue during the election. It is bizarre that you are using this ridiculous talking point as if you don’t know all this.
“ that he facilitated any activity that prevented Biden assuming office.”
According to Brooks, Trump wanted him to remove Biden physically from office and/or just rescind the election after he was sworn in without going through the proper legal channels. Those are conspiracy/solicitation of a crime.
No, that is a “petition” for the “redress of grievances”.
It is similar to John Podesta’s request that intelligence agencies brief the Electoral College. This was likely something beyond the legal authority of intelligence agencies, but it was Podesta’s constitutional right to petition those agencies.
In no way was that beyond the legal authority of intelligence agencies. Comparing that to the current president trying to get his successor physically removed from the WH once he takes office is insane.
Can you point to statute authorizing intelligence agencies to provide briefings to electors?
Can you point to a statute forbidding it? They can brief anyone. If the information is classified, it would have to be declassified through the proper channels first, but no one was asking for those channels to be bypassed.
The authority for government agencies to act is circumscribed by statute.
What was indisputable was that John Podesta asking these intelligence agencies to brief the electoral college, regardless of what authority these intelligence agencies had- was protected by the First Amendment.
Actually no it is not. First you have to prove that it would have been an illegal act and two there would have to have been some follow through in which Trump actually did not leave office.
Legally speaking I can plan a bank robbery with others but if we choose not to go forward with our plan there is no crime.
How exactly would someone float an idea about a particular strategy if just by floating it would put them in legal jeopardy? One must act on what is known to be statutorily illegal before we can even consider charging conspiracy.
One assertion by a politician does not constitute proof anyway. If Trump was rebuffed by one why did he not seek out another to advance his plans? That alone cast doubt on Mo Brooks late allegation.
“Legally speaking I can plan a bank robbery with others but if we choose not to go forward with our plan there is no crime.”
Good luck with that if the plan is infiltrated by an FBI informant.
What? Planning without action is not a crime. Conspiracy requires an overt act, and so does the crime of attempt. Almost any act in anticipation or preparation could support an indictment, but the plan alone? ME is right.
Of course, the FBI mole will try to make the group take that crucial action…
Planning without action is not a crime. Conspiracy requires an overt act, and so does the crime of attempt.
I think what Trump did is enough to bring solicitation/conspiracy charges. You may disagree but I don’t.
The First Amendment protects the right to petition government for the redress of grievances.
Except you just said there’s a difference between ordinary people and government officials. Your statement didn’t apply to the example you were talking about, but it definitely applies when we’re talking about the head of government telling other government officials to do things. That goes beyond “petitioning.”
Mo Brooks was not part of the executive branch of government.
“I think what Trump did is enough to bring solicitation/conspiracy charges. You may disagree but I don’t.”
This is why the axiom you can indict a ham sandwich came into being. Prosecutors giving one-sided presentations to groups of men and women unschooled in the complexities of the law.
“My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.” Got it. Where do you life? I can direct you to a Trump derangement clinic in your area. You have a right to an opinion, however biased and ill-informed it may be, but the conversations described do not rise to the level of a crime without more. FACT. Nobody is indicted and convicted for mere planning or advocating that someone follow the plan. I know the weird delusion is that getting Trump justifies breaching all previous standards of justice, but still.
“without more”
But we have a lot more. You can’t look at every single thing Trump did in order to stay in power in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture. I agree we don’t know whether any or all of it points to a crime, but some humility would be nice. The thing about going out on limbs for Donald Trump is that he has a mean tendency of sawing them off while you’re still up there. There is always “more.” If I had told you in 2016 that he would have refused to concede his 2020 election loss, pressure his VP to refuse to certify the votes, and inspire a violent mob to attack cops at the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the election, you might have said I had “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” But then it happened, and now it’s normal.
Who said it’s normal? If you said it in 2016 and added that the election would take place after 4 years of unprecedented undermining and sabotage by the news media, two rigged impeachments, and an election that allowed conditions, like mail in balloting, that had long been regarded as a risk to election integrity, I very well would have said, “Well, that won’t happen, but if it did, I can see this guy going off the rails.” And he did.
The “4 years of unprecedented undermining and sabotage by the news media, two rigged impeachments, and an election that allowed conditions, like mail in balloting, that had long been regarded as a risk to election integrity” demands payback!
The Republican primary voters who are on track to make him the nominee again in 2024 said it’s normal, or at least acceptable, for a president to do this.
And it will become normal if there are no consequences to it.
I’ve argued with you before about the impeachments being “rigged” so won’t do that again; I’ll only point out you have the timeline mixed up. The second impeachment was after the election, not before it; it had to be since it was about his actions on and around January 6th.
More “gotcha” junk. I know when the second impeachment was. It was after the election, but emblematic of the entire approach of the resistance/Democratic/MSM axis to smear and undermine an elected President. So you are criticizing the details in a hypothetical conversation about what might have been said hadn’t happened yet, because my details included a post election item (that I still said was withing the 4 years, which it was.) That’s supposed to make me feel humble and bested.
You’re wasting my time.
They want payback for what was done to Trump.
“Humble and bested?” I was just pointing out an error in the way your sentence was written, which says that the election happened after two rigged impeachments. I assumed it was either a brain fart or a typo; of course I know you know when the second impeachment happened. You write a LOT here; more blog posts per day than I think I’ve ever seen a single writer do, plus participating in a comment section that is hard to keep track of. Mistakes happen, and I promise I’m not trying to assert dominance or whatever when I point them out.
That happened after the resources of the Justice Department was used to give the illusion of credibility to a myth invented by Hillary Clinton.
Here is William Jacobson.
The Durham Report shows that what Trump is alleged to have done is justified payback.
How can payback be unethical?
Have you heard of Maraxus?
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
– Maraxus
Keep in mind that Maraxus was posting to defend the indictment of Rick Perry (which jack had blogged about).
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
it does appear that Maraxus’s ideas are the rules now.
One thing Trumop would do in a second term is to turn the full might of the federal government against his political opponents, consistent with the Maraxus rules!
“If we don’t do it to them, they’ll do it to us” is the rallying cry of fascists everywhere. It’s what the Nazis said about the Jews.
Maraxus got his way.
Michael McCrum paid no price at all for his prosecution of Rick Perry.