The second federal indictment had been out less than a day before Trump’s lawyer and his acolytes in Congress took their new message to their base: The new charges were an assault upon the ex-president’s “free speech” rights.
The problem with his idea is that it's not about "framing". It's about honesty and truth."Framing" is what causes so many needless disagreements. It's fine if you want to disagree with the way someone says something but really, wouldn't it be better to try to grasp the substance of what they're saying and respond to that?
We shouldn't be in a propaganda war against our own fellow citizens. When we do that we're doing the work of the state.
I know liberals now think the state largely belongs to them what with the FBI, CIA, and every other major institution out to get Trump. But if you look past your tribal instincts for a second you should be able to realize they aren't on your side either unless you're in the top .1% wealthy. Actually, the state isn't even on their side either as you can see when one of them gets out of line like Musk has.
The state has become a leviathan that is about power and domination and not much else. It believes in nothing but power and control and needs to be reined in, whoever they appear to represent at the moment.
That's what liberals need to understand. I've been on the left my whole life and I should be the first guy to cheer the witch-hunt against Trump. And yes, witch-hunt is my framing but I feel there's a lot of truth in it. If you read my comment above you'll see why I say that.
But witch-hunts are no good for democracy. If they try to keep Trump out of the '24 election this country may disintegrate. He's not the boogie man they've made liberals think he is. You've all been saturated with anti-Trump stories that are just that: stories. And if you can step back you might see the forces arrayed against him have one thing in common: they all, always, back war and the imperial project. They have been violently (via lies and lawfare) attempting to eject Trump from what they see as their domain -- well it's not their domain. They represent the citizenry and in D.C. they have utterly forgotten that fact since they only serve war, imperialism abroad and at home, and their powerful donors now.
They are the enemy, not the populist right, no matter how many times the mainstream news tells you Trump is Hitler. In fact, a big tell is the more often and emphatically they say something the less likely it is to be true.
If you simply want to believe that then say so but don't believe it because the media tells you. The media has been dragging this country through disaster after disaster for decades now and it needs to stop. They're always wrong and they never admit it. Identify your true enemy before its too late.
I agree with much of what you say---I don't think the media is always wrong, but media of both left and right and politicians of both left and right do enhance the public's perception to believe in this or that as truth and saying the other side is false does nothing but cement listeners' beliefs one way or the other. See https://ken856.substack.com/p/the-elite-left?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
That’s a very long winded way of saying “I promote lies” (“what with the FBI, CIA, and every other major institution out to get Trump”) and “People should be considerate of my views while the people I support say vile things about them.”
No, I think it he is stating a "truth" that the "left" fails to realize and is itself a contributing to the growing power of belief in what you call "lies". A belief is not a lie, but a perception...however, that does not mean Trump did not commit crimes, as the indictment states, Trump could believe whatever he wanted, but he cannot act however he wants. So I think Mr. Preboskenes does raise a very valid issue even if I don't agree with his perspective. If you don't at least listen to the perspective, and just inferiotize the perspective you increase allegiance to the perspective.
One thing though that Mr. Preboskenes does not realize, is that none of the Republican candidates who are running against Trump would be doing so if they did not fully expect Trump to be convicted. With few exceptions, they can't admit that and have to seem to support Trump so they can be nominated after he is imprisoned. They all know they can't defeat Trump for the nomination so they position themselves to be ready to be his most vociferous clone when he ain't there no more. No one wants Trump locked up more than other republicans, and no republican (if he wants a future) can campaign against him.
Candidates run for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure some of them are licking their chops at the prospect of Trump being barred from running. Many may also be angling for a VP spot or some other spot in a Repub admin, or just to increase their prestige for lobbying and other spots.
Inside the beltway political types from either party are useless to any future reform of our deeply corrupt system so I don't give them much attention. I think we need to throw almost everyone out of Congress and start over with people who don't come from the poisonous political class who are go along to get along types we've seen all across the spectrum, such as it is, for decades now.
It's no longer about left versus right as those terms become more and more meaningless. Are they establishment or anti-establishment is the real question now, and the only real energy and potential against the establishment I see is in the populist right. Hence the constant lies and ad hominem attacks against that group from the DC political class which calls them all fascists with astounding regularity.
I think this bit from a recent interview in tablet lays out the terrain in a useful way:
What scared me back then was coming to understand that a new milieu had been created consisting of party operatives, the people in the FBI and the CIA who are carrying out White House policy, and the press. It is all one world now. And that’s something people still seem loathe to admit, even to themselves, in part because it puts them in a state of dissonance with this new kind of controlled consensus that the press maintains, which is obviously garbage. But if you question it, you’re some kind of nut.
This "all one world now" is key to understanding our current mess and the unprecedented consolidation of messaging across the mainstream media and political class.
That's why I say it's all lies because on all the major questions it really is. The Ukraine war is a perfect example: Russia is winning and has been doing so for almost two years now. Russia's govt is not unstable, it's financial and manufacturing economy is thriving and Putin has around a 90% approval rating. Contrary to western propaganda Russia is not a dictatorship though I will say they are a very different culture and it's easy to spin their system as such given Putin's long tenure and other facets of their culture that don't align with western liberal values. The real reason Putin has survived so long is that he has actually worked in the interests of the Russian people by bringing his country back from collapse (induced by western economic shock-doctrine in the 1990s). The turnaround in 20 years has been incredible.
But you won't read any of that in the western press at all, and most people who read what I wrote above will, as the quoted paragraph points out, think I'm "some kind of nut".
Oh well, what can I say? I try to follow the facts as best I can discern them and reading the western press actually disinforms rather than informs these days on almost every important issue. From covid, to global warming and "green" energy, to US economic performance, inflation, the Ukraine war, our poorly performing healthcare system and decaying infrastructure, etc. the mainstream media has completely collapsed as a reliable information source. When the media acts solely as a mouthpiece for government narratives the job is not likely to be well done.
I quoted you directly. It is exactly what you wrote.
For example, you wrote that the federal law-enforcement, intelligence, and many other agencies are ”out to get Trump”. That’s an unsupportable lie, and I called you on it.
I see no need to point out the many other falsehoods and misrepresentations in your comment since you’ve made it very clear that you’re already in your own little bubble and pretty impervious to acknowledging actual facts of reality.
I’d be happy to have a conversation with you on “framing“ or anything else you like, but first, you’d have to demonstrate a willingingness to drop the lies and propaganda.
THANK YOU for this: "In other words, speak all you want. Say what you will generally about the election, make all the claims you feel you’re entitled to make, even false ones. But here’s the thing: Don’t use your words to break the law or induce others to commit crimes."
Once again you translate rule of law essentials into plain English. Bravo!
(And before yours here I read Popular Information. Much overlap and critical to spread far and wide!)
All well said, as the so-called "free speech" argument/excuse/"defense" is for trying the case in public, and only that. It will receive short shrift in a court of law, and Jack Smith will easily cover that base for the reasons stated by Jay. As well, the so-called "intent" defense -- "he really did believe he won the election" - is a non-starter, as there is in law the principle of"willful ignorance" or "willful blindness", where the question of "reasonableness" of a stated belief is assessed, and the indictment shows beyond anyone's doubt that tRump KNEW he lost, but kicked into action various schemes to reverse that loss, and in doing so descended into criminal behavior.
It's been only less than two days since the four-count indictment was released, and already in the MSM we are seeing the usual "bothsidesism" entering into the public domain, where reporters and journalists with no legal background are cherry-picking opinion from a variety of lawyers and "experts" trying to poke holes into the various indictment counts. For example, the NYT David Leonard, in his morning newsletter, stated: "As for Trump’s broader effort to overturn the election result, no federal law specifically bars politicians from attempting to do so." Uh, right, David, that's why he was charged under § 241, which has a rich history of protecting the vote, under all manner of deprivation of the public's right to have their vote counted, and that which tRump and his co-conspirators tried to undo.
Be aware that we will be reading and hearing tons more of this shaky "legal" conjecturing, helped along by members of tRump's defense team, useful idiots amongst Repub politicos, cablenews talking heads, and particularly on social media,
in the months ahead, so prepare yourselves for a tsunami of dis-/mis-information, for it will come, bank it.
I have no idea how the judge will handle the ‘free speech’ defense but DJT has made enough statements indicating he knew he lost to undermine that assertion.
Page 30 of the indictment has a paragraph (83) that continues to the next page. It states that on January 3rd Gen. Milley, identified as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with other senior national security advisors met to update “the Defendant” on a national defense issue. Milley’s and another advisor recommendation was to not take any action because inauguration was 17 days away. DJT’s response was “calm”. He said “Yeah, you’re right. It’s too late for us. We’re going to give that to the next guy.”
Other quotes publicly available have examples of him saying things showing he knew he lost - speaking to Meadows for instance. Or when he called into Hannity’s show in June of 2021 and said: “We were supposed to win easily, 64m votes. We got 75m votes and we didn’t win, but let’s see what happens on that.”
Jay correct me if I’m wrong but even should he be convicted of these charges and sent to prison none of them keep him from holding elected office again, right? Like, he can continue to run for President and, should he win, either be president from prison or immediately pardon himself? I ask not to upset anyone but just to confirm my suspicion, which is that no matter what happens with these cases we still need to beat him--and beat him hard--at the ballot box.
Even if somehow he does not become the GOP candidate we still need to get a Democrat in office because just about any Republican president will immediately pardon him and he will never go away.
When a defense attorney has nothing, they try to turn nothing into something. Confuse the jury and hope for the best. Sometimes it works, but mostly it doesn’t, especially when there is no evidence to introduce. The media should ask Trump’s attorneys and representatives how they will make their case. My guess is they’re bluffing.
Like a boomerang, trump’s favourite words such as “insane”, “corrupt”, “lock her up”, etc are coming back to his face at high speed (maybe not as quick as I wanted). Good gracious. Cross fingers he won’t escape justice this time. Lock him up for good. Thank you.
Thank you again for the detailed legal breakdown. It seems as though Trump's legal team expected a different set of charges and prepared a defense, and then when the indictment didn't follow their predetermined script they stuck with their inapplicable frame.
You mentioned the bizarre world inside Donald Trump's head. Donald Trump's notion of what speech is and what it is for is likely coloring his argument. As a pathological liar, Donald Trump does not use speech in the manner of a normal human being to convey information or establish a relationship, but instead to get a reaction. A bald-faced lie or a taunt that upsets one person while it gets a laugh from another has served its purpose. No fact-check can recall the reaction to it, which is all he is ever after. To Trump, any speech he uses for whatever purpose is his primary tool for shaping his world. The notion that there would be any limits whatsoever placed upon any portion of his exercise of it is an alien concept.
In starting out with that statement about Trump's actual First Amendment Rights, the indictment is an argument of genius. We should all carry it around on a laminated card so we can whip it out, quote it verbatim , and ask any one going on about free speech "since it admits that, what do you suppose the other 44 pages of the indictment are about?"
It's a simple as this. John Gotti ordered murders. He didn't have to leave his desk. That's "just speech," right? Did Gotti try that defense, or was it just too stupid?
The hypocrisy of the Repugnantins is beyond belief. They will not let women getting an abortion claim it is free speech. No it is an action. Well, even if a woman did something that she did not know might harm the fetus she can end up in jail. I think it would be really good to start using abortion metaphors for Trump's situation to show Repugnantins what their words are really like. So, Trump's interference with the election is like Trump conspiring to get an abortion (steal the election) and then getting people to carry out the abortion (commit election fraud). While the fetus (democracy or rather our democratic election process) survived, it has diminished health because of the trauma it was put through.
Gosh, this is sure clarifying. I'm fairly politically and generally smart but seeing all of this broken down is so edifying. I can also see how the MAGA group wouldn't see it because it would require they read and think at the same time.
Thank you; of course I shared this to my facebook feed and to two blue-oriented political groups. I hope you're getting some subscriptions from this as you're getting good responses there from people who appreciate your lucid explanations of legal matters.
I recommend avoiding all right-wing framing. Just repeating it gives it credibility, even to rebut it.
Better framing: "Right-wing media brings more lies to defend Trump. This time: violence is 'Free speech'"
I agree. IMO Jay’s title and opening contribute to the right-wing propaganda machine.
Agreed. George Lakoff has been hammering away on this exact point
Yes, close your eyes and ears to anything that might pop your bubble. Great idea.
Here’s another “great idea”: intentionally misunderstand what people have actually said.
The problem with his idea is that it's not about "framing". It's about honesty and truth."Framing" is what causes so many needless disagreements. It's fine if you want to disagree with the way someone says something but really, wouldn't it be better to try to grasp the substance of what they're saying and respond to that?
We shouldn't be in a propaganda war against our own fellow citizens. When we do that we're doing the work of the state.
I know liberals now think the state largely belongs to them what with the FBI, CIA, and every other major institution out to get Trump. But if you look past your tribal instincts for a second you should be able to realize they aren't on your side either unless you're in the top .1% wealthy. Actually, the state isn't even on their side either as you can see when one of them gets out of line like Musk has.
The state has become a leviathan that is about power and domination and not much else. It believes in nothing but power and control and needs to be reined in, whoever they appear to represent at the moment.
That's what liberals need to understand. I've been on the left my whole life and I should be the first guy to cheer the witch-hunt against Trump. And yes, witch-hunt is my framing but I feel there's a lot of truth in it. If you read my comment above you'll see why I say that.
But witch-hunts are no good for democracy. If they try to keep Trump out of the '24 election this country may disintegrate. He's not the boogie man they've made liberals think he is. You've all been saturated with anti-Trump stories that are just that: stories. And if you can step back you might see the forces arrayed against him have one thing in common: they all, always, back war and the imperial project. They have been violently (via lies and lawfare) attempting to eject Trump from what they see as their domain -- well it's not their domain. They represent the citizenry and in D.C. they have utterly forgotten that fact since they only serve war, imperialism abroad and at home, and their powerful donors now.
They are the enemy, not the populist right, no matter how many times the mainstream news tells you Trump is Hitler. In fact, a big tell is the more often and emphatically they say something the less likely it is to be true.
If you simply want to believe that then say so but don't believe it because the media tells you. The media has been dragging this country through disaster after disaster for decades now and it needs to stop. They're always wrong and they never admit it. Identify your true enemy before its too late.
I agree with much of what you say---I don't think the media is always wrong, but media of both left and right and politicians of both left and right do enhance the public's perception to believe in this or that as truth and saying the other side is false does nothing but cement listeners' beliefs one way or the other. See https://ken856.substack.com/p/the-elite-left?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
That’s a very long winded way of saying “I promote lies” (“what with the FBI, CIA, and every other major institution out to get Trump”) and “People should be considerate of my views while the people I support say vile things about them.”
No, I think it he is stating a "truth" that the "left" fails to realize and is itself a contributing to the growing power of belief in what you call "lies". A belief is not a lie, but a perception...however, that does not mean Trump did not commit crimes, as the indictment states, Trump could believe whatever he wanted, but he cannot act however he wants. So I think Mr. Preboskenes does raise a very valid issue even if I don't agree with his perspective. If you don't at least listen to the perspective, and just inferiotize the perspective you increase allegiance to the perspective.
One thing though that Mr. Preboskenes does not realize, is that none of the Republican candidates who are running against Trump would be doing so if they did not fully expect Trump to be convicted. With few exceptions, they can't admit that and have to seem to support Trump so they can be nominated after he is imprisoned. They all know they can't defeat Trump for the nomination so they position themselves to be ready to be his most vociferous clone when he ain't there no more. No one wants Trump locked up more than other republicans, and no republican (if he wants a future) can campaign against him.
Candidates run for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure some of them are licking their chops at the prospect of Trump being barred from running. Many may also be angling for a VP spot or some other spot in a Repub admin, or just to increase their prestige for lobbying and other spots.
Inside the beltway political types from either party are useless to any future reform of our deeply corrupt system so I don't give them much attention. I think we need to throw almost everyone out of Congress and start over with people who don't come from the poisonous political class who are go along to get along types we've seen all across the spectrum, such as it is, for decades now.
It's no longer about left versus right as those terms become more and more meaningless. Are they establishment or anti-establishment is the real question now, and the only real energy and potential against the establishment I see is in the populist right. Hence the constant lies and ad hominem attacks against that group from the DC political class which calls them all fascists with astounding regularity.
I think this bit from a recent interview in tablet lays out the terrain in a useful way:
What scared me back then was coming to understand that a new milieu had been created consisting of party operatives, the people in the FBI and the CIA who are carrying out White House policy, and the press. It is all one world now. And that’s something people still seem loathe to admit, even to themselves, in part because it puts them in a state of dissonance with this new kind of controlled consensus that the press maintains, which is obviously garbage. But if you question it, you’re some kind of nut.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/david-garrow-interview-obama
This "all one world now" is key to understanding our current mess and the unprecedented consolidation of messaging across the mainstream media and political class.
That's why I say it's all lies because on all the major questions it really is. The Ukraine war is a perfect example: Russia is winning and has been doing so for almost two years now. Russia's govt is not unstable, it's financial and manufacturing economy is thriving and Putin has around a 90% approval rating. Contrary to western propaganda Russia is not a dictatorship though I will say they are a very different culture and it's easy to spin their system as such given Putin's long tenure and other facets of their culture that don't align with western liberal values. The real reason Putin has survived so long is that he has actually worked in the interests of the Russian people by bringing his country back from collapse (induced by western economic shock-doctrine in the 1990s). The turnaround in 20 years has been incredible.
But you won't read any of that in the western press at all, and most people who read what I wrote above will, as the quoted paragraph points out, think I'm "some kind of nut".
Oh well, what can I say? I try to follow the facts as best I can discern them and reading the western press actually disinforms rather than informs these days on almost every important issue. From covid, to global warming and "green" energy, to US economic performance, inflation, the Ukraine war, our poorly performing healthcare system and decaying infrastructure, etc. the mainstream media has completely collapsed as a reliable information source. When the media acts solely as a mouthpiece for government narratives the job is not likely to be well done.
That's not at all what I wrote but you keep your bubble firmly sealed. It's sure to work out well.
Didn't this discussion start with questions about framing? Yeah it did. How ironic.
“That’s not at all what I wrote”
I quoted you directly. It is exactly what you wrote.
For example, you wrote that the federal law-enforcement, intelligence, and many other agencies are ”out to get Trump”. That’s an unsupportable lie, and I called you on it.
I see no need to point out the many other falsehoods and misrepresentations in your comment since you’ve made it very clear that you’re already in your own little bubble and pretty impervious to acknowledging actual facts of reality.
I’d be happy to have a conversation with you on “framing“ or anything else you like, but first, you’d have to demonstrate a willingingness to drop the lies and propaganda.
THANK YOU for this: "In other words, speak all you want. Say what you will generally about the election, make all the claims you feel you’re entitled to make, even false ones. But here’s the thing: Don’t use your words to break the law or induce others to commit crimes."
Once again you translate rule of law essentials into plain English. Bravo!
(And before yours here I read Popular Information. Much overlap and critical to spread far and wide!)
But they're entitled to restrict the free speech of medical professionals, teachers, corporations, etc., especially when they're telling the truth.
They are also actively restricting the speech of teachers. Grrrrrrrrr.
Of course. Without exception, every Republican accusation is a confession. Every single one.
100%
All well said, as the so-called "free speech" argument/excuse/"defense" is for trying the case in public, and only that. It will receive short shrift in a court of law, and Jack Smith will easily cover that base for the reasons stated by Jay. As well, the so-called "intent" defense -- "he really did believe he won the election" - is a non-starter, as there is in law the principle of"willful ignorance" or "willful blindness", where the question of "reasonableness" of a stated belief is assessed, and the indictment shows beyond anyone's doubt that tRump KNEW he lost, but kicked into action various schemes to reverse that loss, and in doing so descended into criminal behavior.
It's been only less than two days since the four-count indictment was released, and already in the MSM we are seeing the usual "bothsidesism" entering into the public domain, where reporters and journalists with no legal background are cherry-picking opinion from a variety of lawyers and "experts" trying to poke holes into the various indictment counts. For example, the NYT David Leonard, in his morning newsletter, stated: "As for Trump’s broader effort to overturn the election result, no federal law specifically bars politicians from attempting to do so." Uh, right, David, that's why he was charged under § 241, which has a rich history of protecting the vote, under all manner of deprivation of the public's right to have their vote counted, and that which tRump and his co-conspirators tried to undo.
Be aware that we will be reading and hearing tons more of this shaky "legal" conjecturing, helped along by members of tRump's defense team, useful idiots amongst Repub politicos, cablenews talking heads, and particularly on social media,
in the months ahead, so prepare yourselves for a tsunami of dis-/mis-information, for it will come, bank it.
I believe his lawyers are at the third stage:
Stage 1: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts"
Stage 2: "if you have the law on your side, pound the law"
Stage 3: "if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
I have no idea how the judge will handle the ‘free speech’ defense but DJT has made enough statements indicating he knew he lost to undermine that assertion.
Page 30 of the indictment has a paragraph (83) that continues to the next page. It states that on January 3rd Gen. Milley, identified as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with other senior national security advisors met to update “the Defendant” on a national defense issue. Milley’s and another advisor recommendation was to not take any action because inauguration was 17 days away. DJT’s response was “calm”. He said “Yeah, you’re right. It’s too late for us. We’re going to give that to the next guy.”
Other quotes publicly available have examples of him saying things showing he knew he lost - speaking to Meadows for instance. Or when he called into Hannity’s show in June of 2021 and said: “We were supposed to win easily, 64m votes. We got 75m votes and we didn’t win, but let’s see what happens on that.”
Jay correct me if I’m wrong but even should he be convicted of these charges and sent to prison none of them keep him from holding elected office again, right? Like, he can continue to run for President and, should he win, either be president from prison or immediately pardon himself? I ask not to upset anyone but just to confirm my suspicion, which is that no matter what happens with these cases we still need to beat him--and beat him hard--at the ballot box.
None of these charges if convicted on them prevent him from holding office, correct.
Even if somehow he does not become the GOP candidate we still need to get a Democrat in office because just about any Republican president will immediately pardon him and he will never go away.
The bank example is good. A variation on it that mirrors the facts more closely.
I argue Arizona owes me a $5000 tax refund. This is legal, even if I'm lying.
Arizona says no. I take it to court. This is fine, even if the lawsuit is in bad faith.
The court says no. I say, screw em all, forge a $5000 check from Arizona and take it to the bank. This is not fine. It's fraud.
When a defense attorney has nothing, they try to turn nothing into something. Confuse the jury and hope for the best. Sometimes it works, but mostly it doesn’t, especially when there is no evidence to introduce. The media should ask Trump’s attorneys and representatives how they will make their case. My guess is they’re bluffing.
Like a boomerang, trump’s favourite words such as “insane”, “corrupt”, “lock her up”, etc are coming back to his face at high speed (maybe not as quick as I wanted). Good gracious. Cross fingers he won’t escape justice this time. Lock him up for good. Thank you.
And his most recent insult, “deranged.”
Oh his favorite words are witch hunt and now prosecutorial misconduct. SMH
So true. Fake news. Hah.
Thank you again for the detailed legal breakdown. It seems as though Trump's legal team expected a different set of charges and prepared a defense, and then when the indictment didn't follow their predetermined script they stuck with their inapplicable frame.
You mentioned the bizarre world inside Donald Trump's head. Donald Trump's notion of what speech is and what it is for is likely coloring his argument. As a pathological liar, Donald Trump does not use speech in the manner of a normal human being to convey information or establish a relationship, but instead to get a reaction. A bald-faced lie or a taunt that upsets one person while it gets a laugh from another has served its purpose. No fact-check can recall the reaction to it, which is all he is ever after. To Trump, any speech he uses for whatever purpose is his primary tool for shaping his world. The notion that there would be any limits whatsoever placed upon any portion of his exercise of it is an alien concept.
One more to consider: Even if everything he believed was TRUE, the actions are still illegal.
In starting out with that statement about Trump's actual First Amendment Rights, the indictment is an argument of genius. We should all carry it around on a laminated card so we can whip it out, quote it verbatim , and ask any one going on about free speech "since it admits that, what do you suppose the other 44 pages of the indictment are about?"
It's a simple as this. John Gotti ordered murders. He didn't have to leave his desk. That's "just speech," right? Did Gotti try that defense, or was it just too stupid?
The hypocrisy of the Repugnantins is beyond belief. They will not let women getting an abortion claim it is free speech. No it is an action. Well, even if a woman did something that she did not know might harm the fetus she can end up in jail. I think it would be really good to start using abortion metaphors for Trump's situation to show Repugnantins what their words are really like. So, Trump's interference with the election is like Trump conspiring to get an abortion (steal the election) and then getting people to carry out the abortion (commit election fraud). While the fetus (democracy or rather our democratic election process) survived, it has diminished health because of the trauma it was put through.
Gosh, this is sure clarifying. I'm fairly politically and generally smart but seeing all of this broken down is so edifying. I can also see how the MAGA group wouldn't see it because it would require they read and think at the same time.
Thank you; of course I shared this to my facebook feed and to two blue-oriented political groups. I hope you're getting some subscriptions from this as you're getting good responses there from people who appreciate your lucid explanations of legal matters.
Thank you!
Another excellent write-up. Thanks, Jay!