From the moment ABC made Bill Clinton’s media propaganda guy its supposedly objective host for the network’s Sunday public affairs, talking heads show, the jig was up, or should have been. George Stephanopoulos is and was a Democratic Party operative; that he was allowed to keep this job, which allowed him to, for example, interview his former de facto boss, Hillary Clinton, on more than one occasion, should have put to bed permanently the claims of the ethically blind that mainstream media news reporting was not disgracefully biased.
Now George is apparently more secure than ever that his displaying open partisanship will meet with no resistance from his management at Disney/ABC. Asked by CNN host Abby Phillip this week what the “most important question” for both candidates should be in the June 27 debate moderated by the CNN, Stephanopoulos recommended that CNN’s moderators should confront former President Trump with “Who won the last election?”
That’s a great way to try to duck the actual issues in the election. Then, I suppose, CNN’s moderators should start grilling Trump on the substance of his various prosecutions.
Stephanopoulos told Abby that if he is speaking with a candidate or a politician who won’t accept that the 2020 election was completely legitimate, then he will not “go on to other issues.” “I’m not going to participate in some kind of a sham where you somehow equate the legitimacy of an election or the peaceful transfer of power with a debate over tax cuts or environmental regulation,” he said. “If you can’t pass that fundamental threshold of saying, ‘yes the last election was not stolen,’ two, ’I will abide by the results of the next election,’ then I think that’s all voters and viewers need to know.”
That’s all voters need to know? This is a “protect Biden” strategy right out of DNC and White House desperation sessions. Heck, I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that George was in the room. Keep the election from being about the near total failure of the current President’s administration, his mental decline, and his party’s efforts to rig this election by locking up his competition. Make election 2024 about the last election. (But don’t mention Hunter Biden’s laptop.)
When has it been acceptable for news anchors to meet and politically strategize about the best way to stop a particular candidate on national TV? When did that become a legitimate journalistic function? The answer, of course, is never. But then Stephanopoulos has never been a journalist. In addition, he is akin to the Bush loyalists, the Cheney cabal and the McCain Furies who are bitter and bent on vengeance against Donald Trump, in George’s case, for daring to foil the grand plans of his patron queen, Hillary.
Over at Legal Insurrection, Mike La Chance has the perfect response for Trump to have ready to counter that “gotcha!” question: “I’ll tell you what: I’ll say Biden won the 2020 election fair and square if you’ll admit that Democrats and almost everyone in your industry lied to the country for four years about me winning the 2016 election because of Russia. Do you admit it?”
Bingo. Because that ongoing lie is one of the reasons Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was “rigged” is not “baseless.’
George told Mediate that “it’s journalistic malpractice to do a live interview with President Trump on television.” That’s fair! The news media refusing to interview a Presidential candidate wouldn’t be attempting to rig the election or anything…
LaChance is a bit florid when he concludes that George “is a vicious little toady and extreme partisan.” He’s not wrong, though. And he is absolutely correct that Republicans should “shut him out completely. Don’t do his show, don’t talk to his people, and don’t respond to their requests for information.” They should have done that from the moment ABC gave Stephanopoulos a platform to manipulate the news his party’s way.
Ethics Alarms 
it really depends on what the meaning of “won” is.
-Jut
The whole thing is that these people claimed that Russia somehow stole the 2016 election with a few hundred thousand dollars’ worth of Facebook ads.
Here is Michael Tracey.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
But George is SO cute!
When has it been acceptable for news anchors to meet and politically strategize about the best way to stop a particular candidate on national TV? When did that become a legitimate journalistic function?
I think the response from Stephonopoulos’s defenders would be “When one candidate refused to accept the results of the election and attempted to stay in power past his term.”
You seem to harbor some doubts about the legitimacy of the last election, so that defense would not be compelling to you. But I’m curious to see where you’d draw the line. In previous elections I might ask, “What if one candidate is a convicted felon?” Or “What if one has been found to have committed rape and fraud in court?” But those questions are no longer absurd hypotheticals. So let’s go with an extreme:
If one candidate was openly campaigning on putting Jews in camps and exterminating them, would it then be wrong for news anchors to strategize about how to stop them? Would constantly asking this candidate about that threat be fairly characterized as a “protect the other guy” strategy, or would that be a legitimate focus for the news media?
Obviously, I am not saying that Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 loss is as bad as threatening a second Holocaust. But it is, to my mind, the most important fact about this candidate, and the most unusual in our nation’s history. To not treat it as abnormal and worthy of focus would be journalistic malpractice in my view. And if focusing on that helps the other candidate, that problem is very easy to fix: Trump can accept the results of the 2020 election and admit he lost, and pledge to accept the results of the next election, as every other major presidential candidate in living memory has done. If he can’t do that, the fault lies with him, not the media for reporting on that fact and giving it the weight it deserves.
But the thing is that Trump did abide by the results of the 2020 election — he left office Jan. 20, 2021. Read the Michael Tracey story referenced above — the Democrats refused to accept the results of the 2016 election. I remember them calling on electors to vote for Clinton rather than Trump, as the election results had mandated. Why would they not have been accused of an insurrection and election denial? Where is the difference between Trump and Stacey Abrams? She has never ‘accepted’ the results of the 2018 Georgia election.
One question of terminology — Trump did abide by the results of the 2020 election. That’s not necessarily the same as accepting that the election was totally fair and aboveboard.
Biden has pretty much said a Trump victory would be fatal to ‘our democracy’. Has he pledged to accept the election results if Trump wins? If so, I haven’t heard it.
================
“If one candidate was openly campaigning on putting Jews in camps and exterminating them, would it then be wrong for news anchors to strategize about how to stop them? “
That’s actually not an extreme — it’s what has been going on across the country for months. I haven’t seen Biden condemning them, I haven’t seen news anchors raising the issue of how to stop them, or even that they’re wrong. That’s a much better argument in favor of Trump than against him.
But the thing is that Trump did abide by the results of the 2020 election — he left office Jan. 20, 2021.
You are moving the goalposts. I specifically said Trump “attempted to stay in power past his term.” That is a fact. That he left on Jan. 20, 2021 was an inevitability—no one, including his own cabinet, would have allowed him to stay. (Of course, he will pick his cabinet more carefully this time.)
Read the Michael Tracey story referenced above
No.
the Democrats refused to accept the results of the 2016 election.
Hillary conceded the day after the election. She did not exactly cover herself in glory after, but she didn’t do anything like what Trump did and continues to do.
I remember them calling on electors to vote for Clinton rather than Trump, as the election results had mandated. Why would they not have been accused of an insurrection and election denial?
Because that is, at least in most states, legal. The VP refusing to certify the election on January 6th, as Trump tried to pressure him to do, is not (which is why Pence did not do it). Ordering fake slates of electors to falsely represent themselves in official documents as real electors, as Trump was indicted by a grand jury for doing, is not. Nor did such efforts result in a violent attempt at an insurrection, as Trump’s election denial did.
Where is the difference between Trump and Stacey Abrams? She has never ‘accepted’ the results of the 2018 Georgia election.
Aside from her not being a presidential candidate, see above. That is why Trump was indicted by a grand jury and Abrams was not.
Biden has pretty much said a Trump victory would be fatal to ‘our democracy’. Has he pledged to accept the election results if Trump wins? If so, I haven’t heard it.
Yes. You haven’t looked.
================
“If one candidate was openly campaigning on putting Jews in camps and exterminating them, would it then be wrong for news anchors to strategize about how to stop them? “
That’s actually not an extreme — it’s what has been going on across the country for months. I haven’t seen Biden condemning them, I haven’t seen news anchors raising the issue of how to stop them, or even that they’re wrong. That’s a much better argument in favor of Trump than against him.
I am wracking my brain trying to figure out what you’re talking about here and how it applies to the topic…you make it clear you’re not talking about a presidential candidate…which was the topic…and the Neo-Nazis/white supremacist group support Trump, so you can’t be talking about them…are you talking about the pro-Palestine supporters? Because aside from the fact that, again, they are not running for major office…and that no prominent leader has advocated anything like concentration camps for Jews…and that Biden has in fact condemned anti-Semitism including from the left…and that antisemitism from the pro-Palestine advocates has in fact been covered heavily by the media…and that the most extreme pro-Palestine supporters hate Joe Biden and call him “Genocide Joe,” so their actions can’t possibly be an argument in favor of Trump…
No, that’s all the ways I can think of for why that can’t be what you’re talking about.
So what on earth are you talking about?
1. Yeah. Hillary also pledged to accept the result of the 2016 election, when she was sure she would win.
2. Challenging the results of an election a President believes was corrupted is NOT “attempting to stay in power past his term.” If he shows that the election was tainted and he in FACT won, then he is not staying past his term. He could not show that, and he left office as scheduled. Was Al Gore trying to take the White House illicitly by challenging the results in 2020? Of course not.
Al Gore had a legitimate argument, pursued it through legal means, and accepted when he lost in court; he does not still claim to have been the victor of the 2000 election. Trump’s legal arguments ranged from the spurious to the frivolous, and he also pursued methods that were extralegal (pressuring Pence to refuse to certify) to illegal (fake slates of electors). Gore did not. You may criticize him, Clinton, and Abrams while still acknowledging that Trump’s post-election conduct has in fact been unprecedented.
And she did. She conceded the day after the election. She did not cajole Joe Biden to just declare that she won actually. She did not sign off on fake slates of electors. She did not advocate a crowd go and try to disrupt the certification of the vote. She just decide to be bitter and annoying about it.
1. And then she claimed that she was robbed because of Russian collusion, declared herself “the resistance,” and had surrogates working to get the Electoral College to vote against Trump.
2. Trump did not “advocate a crowd go and try to disrupt the certification of the vote.” Careful. Claiming that is just following Big Lie talking points, and I don’t tolerate that. He revved up a crowd to go protest. He should not have. It was unethical, irresponsible, stupid and un-Presidential, but it was not criminal or illegal.
3. “Cajoling” isn’t an action. Cajoling is just talking.
4. The alternate electors were based on a really bad, desperation legal theory.
”He could not show that” because he made it up.
He didn’t make it up. That’s an intellectually dishonest statement. There was evidence that election laws and rules were not followed. There were witnesses who claimed they had evidence of vote tampering. The mail-in ballots and drop boxes were insecure devices that had been warned about and should never have been allowed. Those devices also made detecting fraud difficult if not impossible. There were respectable lawyers who told Trump that there were grounds for challenging the results, which he had every right to do.
” He said the election was rigged when he lost the popular vote in 2016. He said the election was rigged when Ted Cruz beat him in a primary earlier that year. His own attorney general told him that there was no evidence of significant voter fraud or any other shenanigans that would have been decisive, and he ignored him in favor of the MyPillow guy. That isn’t a rational, good faith belief. It’s either dishonesty or delusion.”
It’s talk. He’s an asshole. He blusters, he says stupid things. That still doesn’t constitute trying to stay in office after his term ends.
“Al Gore had a legitimate argument, pursued it through legal means, and accepted when he lost in court; he does not still claim to have been the victor of the 2000 election.”
Flat out untrue. Gore accepted the SCOTUS decision in an excellent speech, and afterwards repeatedly told audiences that he was robbed. I don’t blame him, but that still what he did.
Trump’s legal arguments ranged from the spurious to the frivolous, and he also pursued methods that were extralegal (pressuring Pence to refuse to certify) to illegal (fake slates of electors). Gore did not. You may criticize him, Clinton, and Abrams while still acknowledging that Trump’s post-election conduct has in fact been unprecedented.
I’m a legal ethics expert, and I know what frivolous means. Trying to get a court to approve a long-shot theory isn’t frivolous, and anyway, Trump wouldn’t know what frivolous means in a legal context. Pressuring, asking, begging, Pence to do anything isn’t criminal. He didn’t have the power to make Pence do anything, whatever lawyer told Trump Pence had the power to block certification was an idiot, and Pence was never going to do it. In law, what Trump did wouldn’t even justify an “attempted” charge.
It has yet to be determined that the alternate elector plan was illegal. Several states have passed laws since 2021 making them illegal: if they were clearly illegal, then such laws wouldn’t be necessary, now, would they? Again, Trump was obviously advised that having alternate electors on stand-by in case courts over-turned the results was prudent.
“You may criticize him, Clinton, and Abrams while still acknowledging that Trump’s post-election conduct has in fact been unprecedented.”
Unprecedented isn’t illegal or even impeachable. Gore’s actions were unprecedented, but not wrongful. Abrams refusal to concede or accept the election results was exactly what Trump did (he did more, of course).
”He did more, of course.”
Yes, he also did more than what Gore did. That’s what “unprecedented” means.
”2. Trump did not “advocate a crowd go and try to disrupt the certification of the vote.””
Yes, he did. His goal was to stop or at least delay the certification. He thought the crowd might pressure Congress and Pence to do so. Even if you believe he thought they would do so peacefully (despite everyone beforehand knowing that there were groups and individuals planning violence), stopping the certification was clearly his goal, and there is no denying that; even Trump does not deny it. He only denies that it was a crime.
You seem to be defining “The Big Lie” as the claim that Trump attempted to steal the election, rather than Trump’s own lie that the election was stolen from him; if that’s the case, I don’t know how to talk to you. We inhabit different realities.
1. Don’t play dishonest word games with me. What Gore did WAS unprecedented when he did it. What Trump did was also unprecedented.
2. “He thought the crowd might pressure Congress and Pence to do so. Even if you believe he thought they would do so peacefully (despite everyone beforehand knowing that there were groups and individuals planning violence), stopping the certification was clearly his goal, and there is no denying that; even Trump does not deny it. He only denies that it was a crime.”
3. A Big Lie, a la Goebbels, is a repeated falsehood designed to create a false narrative by making the target deny the lie. That is a Big Lie, because trump took no action to “steal” the election whatsoever. Challenging the election in the courts was a legal challenge and not “stealing” by definition. He engaged in no other action that attempted to hold power without the assent of the legal system. That’s a fact. Trump’s claim that the election was stolen, in contrast doesn’t designate any specific agency, and is simply an expressed opinion that canot be proved or disproved, hence it is not a Big Lie.
If we are in different realities, yours is the one ungoverned by logic, language, and facts.
(Just so you don’t fall into a trap. I get to say things like that to guests here. They don’t get to say thing like that to me. Host’s privilege.)
WHAT? Urging people to protest is inappropriately trying to pressure Congress to stop certifying the election? Gee, if he told them that chanting magic words might work, would that be interfering with the election? Protests and demonstrations are rights, and it you can cite me a single instance where Congress stopped its plans to do anything because of a single demonstration, I’ll be impressed.
“WHAT? Urging people to protest is inappropriately trying to pressure Congress to stop certifying the election?”
If the goal of the protest is to try and pressure Congress to stop certifying the election—which it was, according to Trump—then yes, of course. Trying to stop certification was certainly inappropriate. It may turn out to be illegal, if Smith’s conspiracy to obstruct and obstruction charges stick. And it predictably resulted in violence, which Trump did nothing to stop for hours, which strongly indicates he hoped the violence would work. (Further evidence is that he is now threatening to pardon the violent rioters who tried to help him stay in office.) You don’t see how this is inappropriate and incomparable with Gore and Clinton’s whining? They are in different leagues.
And to bring this back to the focus of the post, neither Gore nor Clinton ran for president again. If they had, a similarly strong focus on their post-election conduct by the media might be warranted. In this case, it is certainly warranted, and Stephonopoulos’s journalistic stance is entirely fair and justified.
Again, if this stance “protects Biden,” Trump has an easy way around that problem: he can concede that he lost the 2020 election and pledge to accept the results of the next one. If he can’t meet this basic minimum standard of decency, then it is his fault that the media keeps focusing on that, not the media’s.
Finally, I do not agree with your argument that something can’t be a lie if it’s not specific enough. (And of course, as you know, Trump promoted numerous specific false claims to support his larger “opinion” that the election was stolen.)
It may turn out to be illegal, if Smith’s conspiracy to obstruct and obstruction charges stick
It can not be illegal, because protests are protected by the First Amendment.
And it predictably resulted in violence, which Trump did nothing to stop for hours, which strongly indicates he hoped the violence would work.
Exactly how did it result in violence?
I mean, how does organizing a protest result in violence?
It does not make sense.
And of course, as you know, Trump promoted numerous specific false claims to support his larger “opinion” that the election was stolen.
What I do know is that an FBI lawyer forged evidence to support the claim that the Russians®™ colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election.
Michael:
”It can not be illegal, because protests are protected by the First Amendment.”
It can be if it obstructs an act of Congress. And Trump did not just “protest,” as you know.
“Exactly how did it result in violence?”
Insane question. Why do *you* think Trump supporters stormed the Capitol and attacked cops on January 6th, 2024? Your argument is that there was no connection between this and Trump telling them that the election was stolen and it was up to them to stop Pence and Congress from certifying the results? Ridiculous.
It can be if it obstructs an act of Congress.
The idea that a protest could obstruct an act of Congress is so inane that merely to state it would refute it.
Your argument is that there was no connection between this and Trump telling them that the election was stolen and it was up to them to stop Pence and Congress from certifying the results? Ridiculous.
Your idea that Trump telling the rioters that the election was stolen caused them to riot is inane and ridiculous.
If we apply your logic, then Nikole Hannah-Jones, Patrice Cullors, and Charles M. Blow’s claims that the cops habitually hunt down and gun down unarmed Black men, that the criminal justice is systemically racist, and spreading of the #HandUpDontShoot meme caused people to riot in Minneapolis, Portland, and Kenosha.
Do you really want to go there?
“The idea that a protest could obstruct an act of Congress is so inane that merely to state it would refute it.”
Can breaking into the Capitol, attacking police, and hog-tying members of Congress, as were the rioters’ plans, obstruct an act of Congress? (The answer is yes.)
Did Trump want the protesters to obstruct the act of certification? (The answer is yes, he said so himself.)
When he saw his supporters breaking through the Capitol did he immediately tell them to go home? (No, he waited hours, said “This is when an election is stolen,” and continued to publicly target Pence, because he hoped the violence would work in his favor.
If any of the activists you mentioned told protesters to go to police headquarters in order to stop a particular arrest or other police action, your equivalence might be valid. It is not. And there is far more evidence of systemic racism in police departments than there is that Trump won the 2020 election.
But honestly, you’re comparing the result of decades of justified anger in the black community over disparate treatment with…a bunch of privileged assholes trashing the Capitol because another privileged asshole refused to admit he lost one election. It’s offensive and barely merits a response. I do not justify ANY riot but nor am I going to pretend these two situations are similar.
This is garbage:
Can breaking into the Capitol, attacking police, and hog-tying members of Congress, as were the rioters’ plans, obstruct an act of Congress? (The answer is yes.)
The riot was not organized, as the word implies. The “plans” of some wackos in a mobe do not become the plans of the group. There was literally no way the rioters could stop Biden’s certification. This is the impossibility defense, and it applies.
Did Trump want the protesters to obstruct the act of certification? (The answer is yes, he said so himself.)
You should be embarrassed to type crap like this. He wanted a leagl demonstration. Fine. A legal demonstration doesn’t obstruct anything. He never used the term “obstruct,” so you can’t say he said that.
When he saw his supporters breaking through the Capitol did he immediately tell them to go home? (No, he waited hours, said “This is when an election is stolen,” and continued to publicly target Pence, because he hoped the violence would work in his favor.)
Utter bullshit, though not original bullshit. Since he did not order a riot, he had no obligation or power to stop the riot. (Speaker Pelosi however had an obligation to take measures to prevent a riot, and ignored them.) If I were Trump’s advisor, I would have said, “If you speak to to rioters and tell them to stop, that will be used as evidence that you were behind the riot. Stay out of it.” This has always been a dishonest talking point.
“It is not. And there is far more evidence of systemic racism in police departments than there is that Trump won the 2020 election.”
“I like ice cream. Can you swim?”
But honestly, you’re comparing the result of decades of justified anger in the black community over disparate treatment with…a bunch of privileged assholes trashing the Capitol because another privileged asshole refused to admit he lost one election. It’s offensive and barely merits a response. I do not justify ANY riot but nor am I going to pretend these two situations are similar.
Riots are similar to riots, and riots are not justified or any less illegal because of what triggered the riot. You’re making a “good riot” argument. Which is ridiculous.
Riots are similar to riots, and riots are not justified or any less illegal because of what triggered the riot. You’re making a “good riot” argument. Which is ridiculous.
You called this out on January 6, 2021.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/01/06/ethics-observations-on-the-pro-trump-rioting-at-the-capitol/
1. First and foremost, anyone who did not condemn all of the George Floyd/Jacob Blake/Breonna Taylor/ Black Lives Matters rioting that took place this summer and fall is ethically estopped from criticizing this episode.
That means I can, and will, condemn it as stupid, useless, self-destructive and anti-democratic violence, but most Democrats, progressives and media pundits cannot.
If any of the activists you mentioned told protesters to go to police headquarters in order to stop a particular arrest or other police action, your equivalence might be valid. It is not. And there is far more evidence of systemic racism in police departments than there is that Trump won the 2020 election.
Someone did organize those BLM-related protests that turned violent.
But unless they organized the protests with the purpose of starting a riot, they are not responsible for the riots.
“There was literally no way the rioters could stop Biden’s certification.”
Sure they could have. Had they succeeded in killing or kidnapping members of Congress, including the Vice President–as many planned to do–the certification would have been stopped. Had they terrorized Mike Pence into refusing to certify, the certification would have been stopped. And there is no “impossibility defense.” If I try to break into a bank vault and I have no actual skills on how to do that, I will still be charged with attempted robbery.
“You should be embarrassed to type crap like this. He wanted a leagl demonstration.”
If he wanted a legal demonstration, he would have told his supporters to stop the moment it became illegal.
“He never used the term “obstruct,” so you can’t say he said that.”
He said “stop.” That means the same as “obstruct.” You think criminals have to use the exact technical legal terminology of a crime in order to be charged with that crime, and *I* should be embarrassed?
“Utter bullshit, though not original bullshit. Since he did not order a riot, he had no obligation or power to stop the riot.”
I do not agree with your belief that if supporters of mine start a riot in my name, intended for the sole purpose of keeping me in power, I am not under any obligation to try and stop that riot.
I find such an argument to be profoundly unethical and completely discrediting to any ethicist who would make it.
“(Speaker Pelosi however had an obligation to take measures to prevent a riot, and ignored them.)”
This is not true and has debunked for years.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542
“If I were Trump’s advisor, I would have said, “If you speak to to rioters and tell them to stop, that will be used as evidence that you were behind the riot. Stay out of it.””
That would be putting his political and personal image above the priority of stopping an active riot, and would thus be profoundly unethical.
“Riots are similar to riots, and riots are not justified or any less illegal because of what triggered the riot. You’re making a “good riot” argument. Which is ridiculous.”
It would be, if I hadn’t just explicitly said that no riot is justified. What I was explaining was that the activists Michael named were not responsible for BLM-related riots in the same way Trump was responsible for this one. Those riots were the results of decades if not centuries of anger within the black community. Some activists may have inflamed tensions, but they did not create this anger. The premise of the Capitol riot was that Trump was the true winner of the election and that his exit from the White House could be prevented if they stopped certfiication on January 6th. This premise was ENTIRELY created by Trump. The question this resolves is not “Which riot was more justified,” it’s “Who is more responsible for riots: Trump for convincing his followers of a conspiracy theory that the election was stolen and they could stop the steal, or people who talked about racism and police brutality.” The answer is clear.
What I was explaining was that the activists Michael named were not responsible for BLM-related riots in the same way Trump was responsible for this one.
Actually, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Patrice Cullors, and Charles M. Blow were responsible for the BLM-related riots exactly the same way as Trump was responsible for the Capitol riot- which is not responsible at all.
This is despite the fact that their speech was unethical.
Some activists may have inflamed tensions, but they did not create this anger.
It was unethical and immoral for those activists to inflame those tensions.
But merely inflaming those tensions does not mean they are responsible for the riots in Portland, Kenosha, and Minneapolis.
“Who is more responsible for riots: Trump for convincing his followers of a conspiracy theory that the election was stolen and they could stop the steal, or people who talked about racism and police brutality.”
They are equally responsible, which in this case means that they were not responsible.
Zero equals zero.
Also, if Trump had merely wanted a “legal demonstration,” he would not now be calling the people who broke laws that day “warriors” and “victims” who have been unfairly persecuted by the law.
If he were condemning the lawbreakers while praising the peaceful protesters, your claim that he merely wanted a legal protest might be somewhat plausible (though it would ignore many other events in which Trump has praised and encouraged violence). But now? It is completely implausible.
Also, if Trump had merely wanted a “legal demonstration,” he would not now be calling the people who broke laws that day “warriors” and “victims” who have been unfairly persecuted by the law
You’re incorrigible. What Trump says now proves exactly nothing about his conduct and intent then, and you know it. He is right to say they have been persecuted and are political prisoners, and also right to promise to pardon them. Many of then are going to be found unjustly imprisoned anyway.
“He is right to say they have been persecuted and are political prisoners, and also right to promise to pardon them. Many of then are going to be found unjustly imprisoned anyway.”
Which ones, specifically?
We will see. Lots of appeals coming. The sentences have been excessive in the extreme.
I can’t “name” any of them. “Gotcha’s” against the host will get you banned here. Debate fair, or leave.
Challenging the election in the courts was a legal challenge and not “stealing” by
In addition to challenging the election in court and being thrown out by every single court, Trump also tried to steal the election through illegal means.
Just saying it doesn’t make it so. This is an extreme partisan fantasy, and eventually, everyone will recognize it. The President broke no laws at all, no matter how many times people like you keep repeating it.
Trump also tried to steal the election through illegal means.
Which illegal means were they?
Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who charged Trump, is a Republican. He was able to convince a grand jury that Trump broke laws in his actions. Bill Barr, the Republican attorney general who served under Trump with great fidelity until January 6th, has said he believes Jack Smith has a very strong case.
All of that would seem to indicate that the idea Trump broke laws is not “an extreme partisan fantasy.”
Urging people to protest is inappropriately trying to pressure Congress to stop certifying the election?
I can be open to argument that this was unethical.
However, it can not be illegal, as pressuring Congress is protected by the First Amendment.
“Pressure” means different things coming from a citizen to his representatives than a boss to his subordinate. And pressuring someone to commit an illegal act can, in certain circumstances, get one in legal trouble.
“Which illegal means were they?”
Just to take the strongest example, participating in the false electors scheme. It is not legal to submit fraudulent documents to the government. Even if Trump genuinely believes he won the election, he knew that the fake electors were not real.
“Pressure” means different things coming from a citizen to his representatives than a boss to his subordinate.
Congress is not the subordinate of the President.
“Congress is not the subordinate of the President.”
I was clearly talking about the Vice President, who kinda is. But keep pretending there is no difference between “pressure” coming from a normal citizen vs pressure coming from the most powerful man in the world.
Pressuring is not a crime.
ME, these guys think anything Trump does is a crime, because he’s a BAD GUY, see.
Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
I think the actual crimes he’s being charged with for trying to steal the election is what makes it so.
I think the actual crimes he’s being charged with for trying to steal the election is what makes it so.
Actual crimes?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2897921/democrats-double-freakout/
The big obstacle, for Smith, Biden, and the Democratic Party, is that Smith’s case involves “novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances,” in the words of a New York Times analysis.
It is astonishing that the New York Times editors allowed this phrase to be published- let alone insist that the author write that the case involves ” a straightforward application of criminal laws backed up by two centuries of Supreme Court precedent”.
He only denies that it was a crime.
Of course, for it was not.
Trump was charged with 2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under and 1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States among others.
How could he have obstructed a proceeding when he was not even there?
That charge refutes itself.
Of course it does, but never mind. The whole lawfare effort against Trump is not concerned with facts and only slightly concerned with law.
“How could he have obstructed a proceeding when he was not even there?”
Impossibly stupid question, especially as you were just told that Trump was charged with “conspiracy” to obstruct.
Sorry, but that’s a “stupid’ retort. A charge isn’t proof of anything.
He would have had to cause the riot to be guilty of that.
Jack: “Of course it does, but never mind. The whole lawfare effort against Trump is not concerned with facts and only slightly concerned with law.”
Bill Barr, Trump’s Republican attorney general, thinks that Jack Smith, another Republican, has a good case. David French, a conservative Republican, has written in defense of Smith’s case. All the Republican lawyers at the Bulwark think that Jack Smith has a good case.
Can you point me to where you have broken down their legal arguments and explained where you find them wanting? Because I don’t see that here; you just keep insisting the case is *obviously* partisan and meritless while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
“Bill Barr, Trump’s Republican attorney general, thinks that Jack Smith, another Republican, has a good case. David French, a conservative Republican, has written in defense of Smith’s case. All the Republican lawyers at the Bulwark think that Jack Smith has a good case.”
Appeal to authority. Barr says he’ll be voting for Trump. The same people who cite him as an authority when he supports Jack Smith’s case also called him a hack when he concluded that the Mueller Report justified no charges against Trump. David French, in my view, is a deranged Never-Trump fanatic whom The Bulwark bias has made stupid. The Bulwark???? That was created specifically as an anti-Trump commentary site. Why didn’t you mention George Conway, while you were at it?
I’m not your search-monkey: EA has a perfectly good search engine. The commentary about the weakest of the prosecutions, the one just completed, is copious here. The Georgia case, the second worst, is openly political and based on an ambiguous leaked phonecall that Georgia’s own Governor has said probably didn’t mean what prosecutors claim it meant. The conspiracy case is pure rot, purely political, claiming a “conspiracy” to overturn the election when the President was acting under his Constitutional duties. No President has ever been prosecuted for that, and many, MANY, have engaged in questionable actions in their belief that they were justified. This is the most dangerous of the prosecution, and guarantees that every future President will be subject to this “lawfare.”
Trump did violate the law by holding on to the documents and, worse, not immediately returning them. No other President would have had their home raided, and no other President or candidate would have that offense used as justification to interfere with his candidacy—and, on top of it all, Biden was guilty of the same offense.
But Barr is still right on the law.
The Democrats are prosecuting Trump to interfere with his ability to defeat Biden. That’s a fact, and obvious. It is a totalitarian tactic, destructive and dangerous.
It is UNETHICAL to do this. The legal issues are secondary. This is an ethics site.
It is not an “appeal to authority” to cite prominent Republicans arguing that there is a strong legal case when you are claiming that the legal case is nothing but a “partisan” effort by “The Democrats!” That directly refutes your claim. That Barr has previously run cover for Trump only adds legitimacy to his belief that there is a strong legal case against Trump now. And of course, I specifically asked if you have addressed the arguments of these Republicans, so how can that be an appeal to authority? I didn’t say “They’re right because they’re Republicans,” I said the fact that they’re Republicans weakens your “partisan” accusation and asked whether you had any responses to their arguments. Your understanding of “appeal to authority” is as weak as your understanding of “ad hom” (which you just engaged in yourself against The Bulwark).
”Biden was guilty of the same offense”
No, he was not. Biden returned the documents immediately. Trump refused to do so after multiple demands. That’s why he was raided and charged. You can’t say no other president would have been subject to this treatment when no other president has done this. That’s just you once again refusing to hold Trump responsible for the consequences of his own actions, and blaming those who do hold him accountable for those fair and predictable consequences. Just as you blame Stephonopoulos for correctly focusing on Trump’s refusal to accept election results he doesn’t like. Trump gets different treatment because he acts differently. Claiming that others have acted in the same manner while ignoring significant differences is gaslighting. Pence also retained documents; he wasn’t raided and charged because he gave them back. That also disproves the “partisan” accusation. Hell, Biden’s own son was just convicted of a criminal offense, and Biden has pledged not to pardon him; how can you still hold on to the “biased DOJ” narrative in light of that evidence?
”Sorry, but that’s a “stupid’ retort. A charge isn’t proof of anything.”
I didn’t say the charge of conspiracy was proof that conspiracy occurred. I said it refuted Michael’s silly question of “How could he be guilty of obstruction if he wasn’t even there?” “Conspiracy to obstruct” means you took part in the planning of the obstruction; there is no conspiracy charge that requires someone be physically present in order to be found guilty. As a legal ethics expert, you know this. I’m almost certain Michael knows this as well. Again, that doesn’t mean Trump *is* guilty, it just means that Michael’s question was a silly diversion with an obvious answer.
Biden returned the documents immediately.
That is beside the point.
If Brian Mitchell had returned Elizabeth Smart the next morning, would that absolve him of his crime?
Conspiracy to obstruct” means you took part in the planning of the obstruction; there is no conspiracy charge that requires someone be physically present in order to be found guilty.
The only thing that happened on January 6th that obstructed anything was the riot.
There is no evidence Trump caused the riot.
“That is beside the point.
If Brian Mitchell had returned Elizabeth Smart the next morning, would that absolve him of his crime?”
Irrelevant to the question under dispute. Jack said that no other president or candidate would be charged for what Trump was charged with, and said Biden did the same thing. He did not. Biden’s actions are more analogous to the actions of Pence, who was also not charged. The standard is consistent: politicians are charged when they refuse to return the documents, and not charged when they return them. This is fair and non-partisan.
The crime is taking the documents. In fact, Biden’s taking classified documents as VP is more serious than Trump taking them as President. Hillary Clinton not only took classified materials but destroyed them. No charges, primarily because she was running for President. This document stuff is a common problem with ex-POTUSes, and I have no doubt that others have been dilatory in returning the documents, or didn’t return some of them at all. Trump has been treated with FBI raids and charges because of who he is.
This is not an isolated episode but part of the Post 2016 Election Ethics Train Wreck, the “Get Trump!” effort.
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote about this in 2004.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.politics.guns/c/7MN9WmJsJyI/m/-H0tW6RRtAEJ
I used to be a document custodian.
I think that piece of shit should do serious jail time.
I worked with SCI too. If I’d done any of those things, I’d still be
in jail.
Screw the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. They need to torture Berger to find
out what really happened to those documents.
He probably SOLD them.
There were compelling arguments to make an example of Sandy Berger.
But we did not, and here we are.
They both unlawfully took the documents.
Barack Obama took classified documents with him before his term ended, which he was allowed to do, since he was the President.
[Announcement: David is banned. I’m sick of the “How can you not know this?” and bad faith innuendos. He’s an asshole, and a tunnel-visioned dialogue. Don’t reply to any of his comments if and when he tried to sneak back on. I gave him a chance to debate fairly, he was warned, he couldn’t do it. To hell with him.}
It has yet to be determined that the alternate elector plan was illegal. Several states have passed laws since 2021 making them illegal: if they were clearly illegal, then such laws wouldn’t be necessary, now, would they?
JFK did this in 1960.
Literally no one said it was a crime.
JFK did not do the same thing Trump is accused of.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/big-differences-between-1960-hawaii-electors-2020-ga-trump-electors
You may criticize him, Clinton, and Abrams while still acknowledging that Trump’s post-election conduct has in fact been unprecedented.
Here is what Trump did not do.
Trump did not pay for a, inteligence dossier and classify it as a legal expense.
Trump did not use an intelligence dossier to obtain FISA warrants against a political campaign.
Trump did not have sympathizers in the Department of Justice conduct a four-year investigation to give his election denial claims an illusion of credibility.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/
There were no “FISA warrants against a political campaign.” The warrants on Carter Page were all issued after Page had left the campaign, and were based on a lot more evidence than just the Steele dossier (though some FBI officials did lie on official documents to exaggerate the extent of that evidence).
Mueller, a Republican, found that the Russian government did in fact interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of helping Donald Trump win the election. A bipartisan investigation by Congress found the same thing.
1)If trying to persuade electors to change their vote from Trump to Clinton isn’t trying to overturn the results of an election, I cannot think what would be. That happened — you could, as they say, look it up.
2)You brought up the topic of advocating for putting Jews in concentration camps. Bringing that up right now is incredibly insensitive and inflammatory — because it is, in fact, what Hamas wants to do and all these pro Hamas rallies and demonstrations are simply amping up antisemitism in this country and others.
You clearly brought it up in an effort to associate Trump with the Holocaust, and that’s an argument in very bad faith. No, Biden hasn’t endorsed these mobs but he certainly has not unequivocally condemned them. You can make a good case that his actions and words have prolonged the conflict and aided the Hamas resistance. I don’t believe that’s his intent, but it’s a foreseeable result of his actions.
I will say one thing about Al Gore. That election really opened my eyes. I thought he had a legitimate case to start with, but it morphed into something much more than that. I became convinced that the Democrats, which may or may not have included Gore, were willing to do anything — legitimate, legal, or not — to win Florida. With the connivance of the Florida judicial system, they kept moving the goalposts over and over to try and get the result they wanted.
Eventually, as we know, the Supreme Court had to step in and basically say enough is enough. There has to be a definite end point — we simply cannot have endless recounts for the presidential election.
As Jack mentioned, Gore then made a very good concession speech, but then morphed into being an ass.
That and my subsequently moving to North Carolina where I got to see some of the nasty and extreme things Democrats were willing to do to hold onto power at any cost, really opened my eyes.
And speaking of North Carolina, I’ve mentioned before that if you want to see what a real insurrection looks like, we had one here for real in 1898 — state Democrats didn’t care for Republicans winning elections in Wilmington and overthrew the elected government by force. You can look it up.
It amazes me that this part of the Florida re-count is almost completely erased: how the Florida Democratic-tilted courts deliberately re-wrote the laws on the fly to give Gore a chance to win the election. The ruling of the Florida Supremes that led to the U.S. Supreme Court stepping in was particularly outrageous, and appeared so at the time.
In your opinion, what was outrageous about it?
Diego:
You throw out a ‘hypothetical’ about a second Holocaust at the same time we’ve been having numerous demonstrations calling for the genocide of Jews and you ask us to believe this was just a random thought experiment? I was born at night. I wasn’t born last night.
And regarding faithless electors, I have not been talking about the electors. I’ve been talking about the organized campaign to get electors to change their votes from Trump to Clinton. What else can you call such a campaign but an attempt to overturn an election? If you want to answer, don’t deflect by talking about faithless electors, talk about the campaign to change those electors votes.
If you do not recall that campaign, well, you need to get out more.
And regarding faithless electors, I have not been talking about the electors. I’ve been talking about the organized campaign to get electors to change their votes from Trump to Clinton.
Diego, that’s what a faithless elector is.
No, a faithless elector is an individual who changes his vote from what his state told him to vote.
A campaign to persuade electors to change their votes is a campaign to overturn the results of an election.
You need to read better books.
So your issue is not with the faithless electors themselves, but with the people who asked them to be faithless electors? And the fact that people asked them to renege on the candidates they were pledged to means…Biden is worse than Trump when it comes to accepting the results of an election, somehow? You make absolutely zero sense. Engaging with you is pointless.
If trying to persuade electors to change their vote from Trump to Clinton isn’t trying to overturn the results of an election, I cannot think what would be. That happened — you could, as they say, look it up.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
John Podesta, the Hillary Clinton campaign chairman whose Gmail account was reputed to have been successfully “phished” by fearsome Russian “hackers,” issued a statement demanding that electors be granted an unheard-of “intelligence briefing” — with the implication for what should be done with that “briefing” information too obvious to need stating outright.
(emphasis added)
I have grave doubts intelligence agencies had the authority to brief the electors.
It was no crime for John Podesta to demand that electors be granted an intelligence briefing.
Ordering fake slates of electors to falsely represent themselves in official documents as real electors, as Trump was indicted by a grand jury for doing, is not
JFK cdid the same thing regarding Hawaii in 1960.
No one thought of it as a crime.
Nor did such efforts result in a violent attempt at an insurrection, as Trump’s election denial did.
Which violent insurrection was that?
It wasn’t a crime in 1876 when several states submitted two slates of electors. On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that that election really was stolen. Legally stolen to be sure, but the person who won the election didn’t take office in March.
It also wasn’t an insurrection. Everyone back then knew what an insurrection was and that wasn’t it.
Absolutely stolen. And the elected President just said, “Oh, to hell with it,” and let it go.
A lot of what Southern Democrats did in the latter part of the nineteenth century was “let go.” I don’t think our country is better off now for it.
On the one hand they made a deal — Hayes in exchange for ending Reconstruction. On the other hand, had Tilden won I imagine Reconstruction would have ended anyway.
Like it or not, it also meant that one section of our country would not be under permanent military occupation. I think that that helped enable us to come together as a single nation later on.
This article points out some differences between the 1876 election and the 2020 election with regard to the two slates of electors, while also coming out pretty cautious about criminal charges for the fake electors in 2020. But the two situations are not legally identical.
https://www.justsecurity.org/82233/a-historical-perspective-on-alternate-electors-lessons-from-hayes-tiden/
Of course they are not legally identical — what cases are?
You bring another straw man to the table. The point is that these things have happened before in our history.
Here’s a question, perhaps more for Jack than anyone — who was the sorer loser, Jackson or Trump?
If he can’t do that, the fault lies with him, not the media for reporting on that fact and giving it the weight it deserves.
Did the Dem leadership accept the results of the 2016 election?
Here is Michael Tracey.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
Again: Clinton conceded. She did not order false slates of electors, she did not try to get Biden to refuse to certify, she did not inspire a violent mob to come to the Capitol with the intent of obstructing certification, she did not do nothing for hours while a violent mob attacked, and she did not run again on the promise of pardoning members of a violent mob. However unethical her conduct was, Trump’s has been worse, and it is ongoing. However legal or illegal his conduct ends up being, this much is true. And if you don’t like the media attention he receives over this, you can use your voice to pressure him to apologize for his post-election conduct and change it. But that would require a belief that Donald Trump should be held personally responsible for his own actions and choices; that in evaluating our choices for higher office, Trump’s conduct cannot be excused by pointing to the actions of any random Democrat who is not running for higher office; and that the media should in fact report on one candidate’s abject disrespect for democratic norms and procedures. And that seems to be asking far too much of you.
Well, to reply to your last point first, we already know that the media does not report on Biden’s abject disrespect for democratic norms and procedures. He seems to revel in defying the constitution.
Clinton did concede and has since spent her time labeling Trump as an illegitimate president. Her supporters spent the weeks after the 2016 election trying to persuade electors to vote for her instead of the candidate who won their states.
We were there, we saw all this. Who are we going to believe? You or our lying eyes?
Did Clinton’s supporters violently attack the Capitol in order to make their fantasies come true?
Did Joe Biden certify the results of the 2016 election without incident even though he was unhappy with those results?
You accuse me of making strawman arguments while continually pretending that I have denied the campaign to push electors to renege on Trump in 2016. That is incredible hypocrisy. In fact I have acknowledged that campaign many times and explained how it differs from Trump’s far more extreme and legally dubious efforts to overturn his election. You do this because you cannot actually defend your weak position that Trump’s post-election conduct is no worse than Clinton’s.
And yet the faithless elector scheme was more substantive and more of a genuine threat than anything Trump supporters were floating.
(Clinton’s supporters held their rioting during Trump’s inauguration.) And she was as responsible for that as Trump was for the Capitol disaster: not at all.
”And yet the faithless elector scheme was more substantive and more of a genuine threat than anything Trump supporters were floating.”
How so? It had slightly more of a chance at success, sure, because it actually relied on actions that were legal. But how was it more of a “threat?” If it had succeeded, the Constitution would have still been followed. The result would have still been democratic, as Clinton did in fact win the popular vote. If Trump had succeeded in 2020, the Constitution would not have been followed, and we would have a president who won neither the popular vote nor the electoral college.
“(Clinton’s supporters held their rioting during Trump’s inauguration.) And she was as responsible for that as Trump was for the Capitol disaster: not at all.”
Trump told the Capitol rioters to go to the Capitol! He said they needed to be “strong” and that if they were, they could convince Pence and Congress to decertify the election. Several members of Congress *did* vote to decertify. Trump watched for hours and did nothing to stop them until his cabinet threatened to 25th Amendment him. People died as a result. He is now threatening to pardon the rioters.
Absolutely none of that applies to Clinton and the inauguration riot. Your equivalence is false.
Trump told the Capitol rioters to go to the Capitol!
He did not tell them to riot. Not even jack Smith claimed that he told them to riot.
Trump watched for hours and did nothing to stop them
Under Washington v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that the police have no duty to protect you.
So it is beside the point thagt Trump did nothing.
Are you aware that you are on an ethics blog?
Did Clinton’s supporters violently attack the Capitol in order to make their fantasies come true?
Even if they did not, that would be beside the point.
Did Joe Biden certify the results of the 2016 election without incident even though he was unhappy with those results?
Yes.
That does not excuse the Stelee dossier, or the use of forgery to obtain FISA warrants.
You do this because you cannot actually defend your weak position that Trump’s post-election conduct is no worse than Clinton’s.
It is far from as bad as Clinton’s. See here.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/
“That does not excuse the Stelee dossier, or the use of forgery to obtain FISA warrants.”
Who said it did?
Neither Clinton nor Kevin Clinesmith are running for president. And we were talking about post-election conduct, not pre-election.
The whole Trump Colluded With the Russians®™ to Steasl the 2016 Election propaganda campaign continued after the 2016 election.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/
I quote Jack Marshall.
3. Barack Obama and Joe Biden actively participated in the scheme, as McCarthy’s last paragraph above reminds us. This was genuinely impeachable conduct, far, far worse than the contrived grounds for Trump’s two impeachments.
Nonsense. There was no plan to “frame” Trump. Russia did in fact meddle to help Trump, as the investigation by Mueller (a Republican) and a later bipartisan congressional investigation proved. Members of the Trump campaign, including his own son, did try and meet with people representing themselves as Russian officials for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary. Don Jr.’s emails prove this. This happened. That the Steele dossier (which barely factored into these investigations and was never used for campaign purposes in 2016) was crap doesn’t change this. That one FBI official forged a document doesn’t change this. And no prominent Democrat has defended Clinesmith; Biden hasn’t promised to pardon him, as Trump pardoned Michael Flynn, who was also convicted for lying to the FBI; nor has Clinesmith become a left-wing celebrity like Flynn has on the right. If you want to see which party actually stands for “law and order,” the difference is pretty clear right there.
Jack posted about Kevin Clinesmith.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/12/16/from-the-i-dont-understand-this-at-all-files-2/
Kevin Clinesmith, a former senior FBI lawyer who was sentenced to 12 months probation last January after pleading guilty to a felony in connection with the falsified information used to acquire the FISA warrant used to surveil marginal Trump campaign figure Carter Paige in relation to the Trump-Russia investigation, was restored as a member in “good standing” by the District of Columbia Bar Association’s discipline committee.
I suppose I should note that I believe the organized attempt by members of various government agencies, including lawyers, to create public distrust of an elected President and to actively seek evidence to support a politically motivated impeachment and conviction posed far more of a threat to democracy than a few hundred idiots storming the Capitol.
I concur with Jack.
What Clinesmith did was further erode the credibility of the federal law enforcement establishment, an establishment we rely on to punish fraudsters, child pornographers, and even terrorists. What he did had lasting repercussions beyond what happened to Trump.
Jack in fact posted about innocent people being imprisoned for decades for crimes they did not commit, convictions that were possible based on lies by law enforcement.
And yet, the bar restored Clinesmith as a member in good standing, less than a year after his conviction.
Again: Clinton conceded.
She also called Trump an illegitimate President.
She also paid for an intelligence dossier and misclassified it as legal expenses. Her campaign actaully admitted guilt before the Federal Elections Commission.
she did not inspire a violent mob to come to the Capitol with the intent of obstructing certification
Neither did Trump
”she did not inspire a violent mob to come to the Capitol with the intent of obstructing certification
Neither did Trump”
Yes, he did. We all saw Trump tell them to go to the Capitol and to “be strong” in order to “stop the steal.” We then saw the Capitol rioters attempt to obstruct the certification through violence while Trump did nothing but watch for hours. We now see him promising to pardon the people who rioted and attacked cops on his behalf, while he calls them “warriors” and “victims.”
You can pretend these facts are unrelated all you want—obviously you have a receptive audience to that kind of thing here—but that doesn’t work on any rational person.
Yes, he did. ‘
No, he did not.
We all saw Trump tell them to go to the Capitol and to “be strong” in order to “stop the steal.”
So what?
He did not tell them to riot. He in fact told them to protest peacefully.
We then saw the Capitol rioters attempt to obstruct the certification through violence while Trump did nothing but watch for hours.
So what if Trump did nothing?
He had no obligation to stop the violence. See Washington v. Davis.
We now see him promising to pardon the people who rioted and attacked cops on his behalf, while he calls them “warriors” and “victims.”
As I wrote before, the rules have changed since then.
Since when? What rules? I have no idea what you’re talking about. Trump knew there would be violence, the violence wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t lied, he didn’t stop the violence until his cabinet threatened to 25A him because he liked the violence and thought it was good, and he now promises to pardon the people who did the violence because he liked it and thought it was good. He likes it when people do violence for him. This is not a man who should be president again and it’s insanity to give him the nuclear codes again.
It’s one thing to argue that Trump’s words did not meet the legal definition of incitement, but to argue that he’s not morally or ethically responsible for what happened on January 6th is insane. You know who else said he’s morally and ethically responsible? Bill Barr. Mitch McConnel. Kevin McCarthy, once upon a time. Almost everyone who wasn’t an extremist blamed Trump in the week after January 6th before Republicans once again bent the knee and made themselves look like gullible cowards. And that’s what you’re making yourself look like every time you play dumb about this.
Trump knew there would be violence, the violence wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t lied, he didn’t stop the violence until his cabinet threatened to 25A him because he liked the violence and thought it was good, and he now promises to pardon the people who did the violence because he liked it and thought it was good.
I am open to arguments that Trump’s propose to pardon the rioters in unethical. There is such a thing as lawful but awful.
However, the idea that Trumps’ lies caused the violence does not make sense.
I already gave the example of Nikole Hannah-Jones, Patrice Cullors, and Charles M. Blow.
Might I suggest a Christmas truce?
We’ve stated and restated our positions, iterated, reiterated, and rereiterated and we are steadily moving towards the “So’s your old man!” situation.
Further argument is not going to accomplish anything (well, it does drive the comments quantity up, which helps Jack).
(But not the quality.)
I view the repeated proclamations of David and Tom as borderline sealioning (or “borderlioning”). They’re not dealing with counter arguments in good faith, just shaking their metaphorical heads because their minds were made up before they engaged in the thread. I am not optimistic…
I truly don’t understand how you can look at your regulars making arguments like “Antisemitic Biden protesters who call him ‘Genocide Joe’ are a good reason to vote against Joe Biden” and “How could there be any possible connection between Trump’s refusal to accept the election results and his supporters rioting on January 6th?” and conclude that those of us objecting to these absurdities are the ones arguing in bad faith.
it is bad faith to claim that Trump shares any responsibility for the Jan.6. rioting. He didn’t direct the riot or ask for the idiots to riot. Citing Trump’s behavior after the election—not challenging the results in Court and seeking strategies to deal with waht he saw as a breach of a the franchise, but speaking irresponsibly, refusing to participate in the inauguration of Biden—is a legitmate reason to oppose him and vote against him. What the rioters did is not.
However, the surge of anti-Semitism and anti-American activism on the Left is a direct result of Biden and his party increasingly bowing to the extreme Left. The results aren’t a single stupid incident, but a society-wide crisis. And Biden has, disgracefully, tried to pander to the same people who are calling him “Genocide Joe.”
So Trump is not responsible for the actions of people who tried to stop the certification on January 6th, which he asked them do, while beating cops with Trump flags, while Trump watched and did nothing, and whom he is now promising to pardon.
But Biden is responsible for the actions of people who hate him and call him “Genocide Joe.” And what they do is a result of a “society-wide crisis” but Trump’s surge of lies and legitimization of the most extreme and conspiratorial elements of the right under his presidency are just a “single stupid incident.”
This is not logically consistent. It is extreme partisan bias and hypocrisy.
What I figured — but it was worth a shot.