Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

The willow is too close to the house.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Not all heroes wear capes.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Bark louder, little dog.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

You are here: Home / Jan 6: Hearings / So much crime, so little time…

So much crime, so little time…

by | 134 Comments

This post is in: , ,

Interesting hallway exchange between reporters and Rep. Lofgren after today’s hearing ended:

It seems obvious to me that it SHOULD be a crime to ask donors to contribute to a fund that doesn’t exist and use the money raised for a purpose other than that for which funds were solicited. But I’m not a lawyer. For all I know, that’s perfectly legal, as absurd as that seems to me.

Someone who is a lawyer, valued commenter Immanentize, shared a fascinating theory on what the committee is up to in the second hearing thread:

I think that the most powerful part of today for me was the fraud in fundraising aspect. It was short, but I see the press was all over it afterwards in Qs to Lofgren. It was a new perspective clearly portrayed.

So my new thought is that the Committee is really seeking to destroy the Trump community — his violent followers prosecuted, his sycophants in the admin. either made to say what was true or called drunks and cranks, revealing Congress critters who sought pardons or worse, his followers who sent him money proved to be chumps. They are demolishing the Trump brand and team. Ivanka I think gets that, Jared does not.

We shall see if my theory holds up, but it would explain why Ginni Thomas is not a big deal to the Cmmt. — she is a side distraction to this narrative arc. And it is coincidentally the best narrative arc for one certain House member from Wyoming to win. As if I don’t know how they got Ben fucking Ginsberg to testify…,

Dismantling the cult is a worthy goal. Holding its leader and his co-conspirators accountable is essential too. The committee is making a compelling case that Trump knew or should have known the falsehoods he was (and still is) peddling are lies, and that he lied to cling to power despite losing the election.

I don’t know if that’s legally actionable or not, but lots of people who are qualified to comment on that issue seem to think it is. Still, I understand that it’s complicated. It takes time.

In the meantime, if fraud charges for the bogus election defense fund grift are possible, in a sense, prosecution for that would be even more appropriate because the crime is so petty and grubby, as is the man himself.

Trump is a conman, and he stole $250 million from supporters through fraud. It doesn’t seem like that would be as hard to prove as a conspiracy that’s broader based and more complex than Watergate. Maybe the appropriate authorities should charge him for that?

Open thread.

Reader Interactions

134Comments

  1. 1.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I’ve lost my scorecard and have trouble remembering who’s who and who did what, but wasn’t Bannon criminally convicted for this kind of fraud? Raising money for “Build The Wall!” or some such and pocketing it?

  2. 2.

    jl

    Hasn’t the SCOTUS ruled that a candidate can de facto defraud their contributors? So any attempts to impose any sanctions at all on candidates’ getting money for some good reason related to the campaign and then using it on booze, hookers and blow in Vegas, is unconstitutional? Or a down payment on that third luxe vacation home.

  3. 3.

    Ben Cisco

    Whatever takes him down and neuters his enablers, I’m down for it.

    If Immanentize’s theory proves correct, it could be a masterstroke, and also cause one or two.

  6. 6.

    gene108

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I think you are right. IIRC, Trump pardoned Bannon.

    I do like the fact that the 1/6 Committee is laying out very, very clearly Trump knew he lost and still continued with his claims of having the election stolen, as well as the violence on 1/6 was premeditated and in response to Trump’s goading.

    They are very focused on showing Trump was at the center of the insurrection.

  8. 8.

    Bill Arnold

    Trump is a conman, and he stole $250 million from supporters through fraud.

    For Mr. D.J. Trump, that was just a desirable side effect of his massive (“huge”) “Election Fraud” fraud, that persistent even after he didn’t take his second oath of office.
    If he had succeeded in his autocoup, his ability to loot the United States of America would have been much less impeded, especially including extortion of large businesses and small-scale fundraising fraud vs his follows.

  10. 10.

    jl

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: If Trump is re-elected, I imagine he’ll set up a desk where his appointees get pre-emptive blanket pardons for everything as part of the intake process.

    It will just be another station. Get on payroll, enroll in benefits, get office, phone, parking and email set up, head over to the non-disclosure desk, then get the pardon, then head to a back room where you get the off the record backchannel coms and dead letter drop points set up.

  11. 11.

    bupalos

    I’m overall really pleased with the angle the hearings are taking and above all the simple focus. Taking a simple theme and battering it 12 ways to Tuesday is something Democrats usually are not good at.

    Trump was lying, and Trump absolutely knew he was lying, and he did it for power and money at the expense of everyone including his supporters.

    I think there’s a pretty good chance that this simple truth can be pushed into something like a general recognition, and there’s a pretty good chance it can damage him badly and kind of scatter his forces a bit.

  13. 13.

    jl

    @jl: For elected Trumpsters, probably the pardon desk will be right next to where they are sworn in, as a candidate recruitment tool and to make a point to those who have ears to hear. The other stuff will be at Mar-a-Lago in some back room.

  14. 14.

    CaseyL

    Hmph. SCOTUS has already ruled that Speech = Money, and any attempts to control contributions is thereby unconstitutional per the First Amendment.  They have also already ruled that politicians can tell lies with (legal) impunity.

    I can definitely see them going the next logical step further and giving First Amendment protection to even outright fraud like this.

    It might not rebound totally in the GOP’s favor if they do, though.  Such a ruling will simply bring more fraudsters out of the woodwork.  One thing I liked very much about the mooks contributing all they could to Trump was it left that much less to contribute for actual political candidates and campaigns.

  18. 18.

    gvg

    I think the point that if it wasn’t illegal, it should be with the point of increasing public consensus to get laws changed. I know its Congress, but we don’t have enough votes in the Senate yet. There also has to be an enforcement mechanism that is separate from direct control of the politicians who it needs to be enforced on. Also all the political operatives who defraud so many people.

  19. 19.

    Hoodie

    I would not be surprised if Trump’s campaign put fine print disclaimers in those fundraising letters to create loopholes for him to wiggle out of a fraud allegation, but who knows if those were sufficient.  It might be actionable in a civil case, a la Trump University.  Could be an interesting class action case.  The courts might be reluctant to recognize a cause of action for fraud in a political campaign, but potential differenced here are that he was taking money for a fund that didn’t exist, promising to take particular concrete actions that he did not have any intention of taking or knew would be fruitless, and using the funds for other things that were in his personal interest.

    Irrespective of whether he can be held legally liable, it does seem like a potentially productive approach to use the hearings to again tell the Trumpists they’ve been swindled.  Perhaps the biggest problem with these folks is that they live in a cult-like bubble that blocks out all reality, making it impossible to reason with them on any issue.   It seems that absolutist positions on things like gun control get reinforced by the tribal bonds that tie these people together, as these issues become signifiers of belonging to the group.  Trump has an important role in maintaining that.  Before he came along, the GOP was somewhat disjointed because of cultural and policy differences among the various groups.  Trump helped unify them basically by making everything about winning, i.e., they supported him because they thought he could win and, because he really doesn’t care about anything other than winning, he would do their bidding on their issues (that’s not exactly a new phenomenon in politics).  If you can reveal to them that their identity is based on faith in a fraud, it might break them up a bit as they fragment back to their individual concerns.   Whether they’ll get the message or block it out is another matter, because the level of denial in these folks is very high and is continuously bolstered by RW propaganda. 

  21. 21.

    MattF

    @MattF: The piece (mysteriously) is sometimes behind a paywall, so… last two grafs:

    What I think all of this means is that we don’t need to go down the rabbit hole of the inner workings of Trump’s mind. That’s his problem. Not ours. As long as we do, we’re chasing a figment where there is only one possible fact witness: him. That’s silly.

    The mob boss who says he’s never been a member of the mob isn’t confused. He doesn’t have an unrealistically high opinion of himself. He’s lying because he doesn’t want to go to prison. That’s obvious. Just as this case is obvious.

  23. 23.

    O. Felix Culpa

    I can’t get behind the TPM paywall, but my experience is that narcissists *believe* whatever they feel serves their needs in any given moment. There is no logical consistency beyond that.

  24. 24.

    CaseyL

    @Hoodie: And your comment made me think of a possibly fruitful counterattack: Bring a class action suit against the Trump Organization, and let his MAGAts know they might get some of their money back if they participate.

  26. 26.

    jl

    @dww44:  I just read it and thanks to dww44 for pointing it out.
    I think the bottom line is that if your insist on dragging in that level of nitpicking over intent and knowledge of guilt, then it would be difficult to ever convict anyone of most crimes.

  29. 29.

    piratedan

    I dunno…. I can understand why the MSM would have its doubts about the Fraud charges, when you look at the long history of successes with Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines and Trump Casino’s; to jump to the conclusion that he was simply in it for the money completely ignores his passion for the political process and America itself…. – proposed NYT pitchbot entry

  30. 30.

    jl

    @jl: And I have mixed feelings about the Marshall piece. I remember taking a joyride in a Ferrari. I swear I remember renting it, and I can tell you for a fact that I lost the keys, that is the whole reason why I had to break into it.

  31. 31.

    cmorenc

    So my new thought is that the Committee is really seeking to destroy the Trump community — his violent followers prosecuted, his sycophants in the admin. either made to say what was true or called drunks and cranks, revealing Congress critters who sought pardons or worse, his followers who sent him money proved to be chumps. They are demolishing the Trump brand and team.

    So how does this demolition (eventually) reach the construction worker wearing a “Trump 24” red had I was next to in the lunch-line today at a Jersey Mikes’ sub place?  Or my Hannity-watching neighbor?  I guess the theory is, destroy the head, and the body will follow.

  32. 32.

    Anonymous At Work

    The way the Committee focused on him being repeatedly told it was false, shutting them out, and then concluded with raising money, especially through wired connections, I’d think the Committee’s attorneys had vetted the evidence against the crime and concluded that you could support wide-ranging charges of wire fraud.

  35. 35.

    jl

    @piratedan: The way things are going in the US, if you are rich and powerful and famous, it is very difficult to get convicted of a whole class of crimes.

    I mean, is it fair to even admit a shadow of doubt unless you have  notarized statement from the accused with a detailed confession of intent and a plan to execute the extortion or payoff for a bribe, with evidence that plan was carried out to the letter? The presumption of innocence makes it unconstitutional to even hint that there might be an appearance of a problem.

  36. 36.

    waspuppet

    Yeah that occurred to me after the hearing was over. Early this morning, the Rude Pundit (an excellent blog and an excellent Twitter follow) tweeted “WTF does it matter whether Trump knew he lost or not? It’s just another way for him to escape accountability.” In a legal sense, that’s true, and he needs to be charged.

    But what today did was make Trump, and everyone around him, look pathetic and weak. I said a few days ago that I was really disappointed that Our Media Stars clearly had no idea that these hearings were really for them. And I still don’t think they know that. But the number of outlets who are now just matter-of-factly saying Trump lied — that’s not nothing.

  40. 40.

    MisterForkbeard

    @O. Felix Culpa: That’s part of it. TPM’s article comes down to two things:

    1. Trump “believes” whatever he wants to believe at any given time. He’s a narcissist and believes whatever he needs to to justify the action he wants to take.

    2. Legally speaking, Trump can likely believe that the election was legitimately stolen and still be charged for trying to commit other illegal acts. If Trump legitimately believed the election was fraudulent, his job was to prove that in court – not incite insurrection, riots, and attempt to overthrow the country.

  41. 41.

    gene108

    @Hoodie: 

    I think Republicans have always been about winning at any cost.

    Trump just showed them all the hemming they did regarding trying to be not overtly racist, trying to pretend they had a coherent economic philosophy, or party platform was unnecessary. Even being caught in a lie or corruption did not matter, as long as the Party held firmly together and did not admit to the member’s wrong doing.

    Trump showed Republicans they just need to pitch to the base emotions of their voters, without any attempt at logic or reason. Point to the “bad people” that are holding their voters back, and take action against them, like asylum seekers, gays, “woke” liberals, etc.

  42. 42.

    eachother

    They put a ding in the ball the committee hit into the upper dome today.
    Close as we’ve seen to Goldwater telling Nixon in 1974 that it was over after the smoking gun tapes.  Everyone told him there was no election fraud.
    I expected Ari to drop the microphone and say it’s over.

    Justice carries a sword.

  43. 43.

    The Moar You Know

    If Trump is re-elected, I imagine he’ll set up a desk where his appointees get pre-emptive blanket pardons for everything as part of the intake process.

    @jl:  such an honest mind you have. The hell he would. He will have them criming away, then the day of reckoning comes. He’ll squeeze them for every last dime they have on the way out, promise them a blanket pardon, and then throw them under the bus, because that’s the way he rolls. No survivors save for his chosen few. He’s done it his entire life.

    And they will thank him for the opportunity to serve. Because that’s how people who would be willing to work for him roll. He won’t hire any other kind.

  46. 46.

    Kay

    It would just be funny, because campaign finance seems to always get them. They can skate on all kinds of things but those big piles of money are too much to resist.
    No wonder conservatives have spent the last 20 years attempting to gut all campaign finance laws. They know.

  47. 47.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @jl:  Oddly enough, criminal jurisprudence has spent a lot of time and effort on issues like that.

  50. 50.

    Brachiator

    It seems obvious to me that it SHOULD be a crime to ask donors to contribute to a fund that doesn’t exist and use the money raised for a purpose other than that for which funds were solicited. But I’m not a lawyer. For all I know, that’s perfectly legal, as absurd as that seems to me.

    Is this investigation part of the January 6 hearings? I am interested in what Trump did to incite or support an insurrection that threatened to bring down the government, and in seeing that Trump and everyone who planned, supported or participated in this insurrection are punished.

    But I am not looking for an unfocused and wide-ranging look into everything that Trump did just to find some shit to nail him on.

    If there is some specific criminal activity connected to January 6 that Trump is suspected of being involved in, include those charges. But save some general question about whether Trump violated campaign finance rules for later, and for somebody else’s investigation.

    Also, I have to admit that if suckered wanted to donate money to Trump without knowing what the money would be used for, I don’t mind and don’t care if they continue to throw money down a rat hole.

  52. 52.

    stinger

    Have to say, Liz Cheney is good at letting a clip speak for itself. Or adding a commentary as brief as, “Whining.” Usually politicians love the sound of their own voice, but she can *not* talk in an impressive way. I admire the self control.

  55. 55.

    jl

    One thing I like about reporting on  the hearings is that several times I’ve heard the phrase ‘a drunk Giuliani’ was at this or that meeting, or was talking to this or that co-conspirator.

  58. 58.

    jl

    @trollhattan: Says the supposed peaceable president who wanted to bomb Mexico to solve the drug smuggling problem. Well, Cheney probably does want another crack at some military response to something whether it’s a good idea or not.

    But that’s another issue. This ain’t a hearing on foreign policy.

    Also, Trump is master conman. He knows just when to roil up a crowd into mindless jingoism and then threaten some giga-bombing stunt that would lead to disaster, and when to bleat out some peaceful sounding tripe for the fake lefty anti-anti-Trumpsters.

  59. 59.

    UncleEbeneezer

    Teri Kanefeld has a good reality-check post on some of the challenges of prosecuting Trump:

    “It’s much easier to prove something in the media because much of the evidence you see in the hearings and in the media would not be admissible in a criminal court.

    The heightened standards in criminal court are because more is at stake. In a criminal trial, a defendant stands to lose constitutional rights such as liberty, property, and (in capital cases) life. So evidence has to meet certain standards, and not all evidence is admissible.

    In a congressional hearing, the only harm a person faces is the truth coming out. Keeping the truth from the public is not a constitutionally protected right (even though Trump and the Congressional Republicans often act as if it is.)

    …

    One problem with getting to Trump’s state of mind is that the evidence has to come from people in his inner circle, and many of them have a history of lying (or at least tolerating lies) because (to state the obvious) they are members of Trump’s inner circle.

    I’ve compared bringing down Trump to bringing down a mafia don or a gangster. If the people around Trump are willing to shield him, it gets difficult to get to him. This is explained in the Godfather, in this passage: (passage from The Godfather)

    The Godfather gave orders to commit a crime in private to his Consigliere without witnesses, who then gave orders to another person without witnesses, who gave orders to the guy who commits the crime. To pin the crime on the Don, the Consigliere would have to turn traitor.

    If the Consigliere does turn traitor, the defense then goes to work trying to discredit him (which may not be hard because, c’mon, the guy is a gangster).

    Because of the standard of proof — beyond a reasonable doubt—all the defense has to do is raise a doubt in the minds of the jurors.

    A thing can be true and provable in court without rising to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.””

  60. 60.

    jl

    @Baud: Four Seasons Landscaping keeps their plants happy, but with an expert eye to control the liver damage. Rudy was already potted when he got there, but needed an expert top up. Or maybe some special fertilizer.

  62. 62.

    jl

    @eclare: Look, somehow those poor mooks got locked up in a windowless trailer, didn’t have the slightest idea where they were going. They could read the plans? C’mon, just look at them.

    Innocent!

  63. 63.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    @germy shoemangler:

    “Hear me out”
    Yeah, no Robert.

    I don’t want a GOP president, period. But if a Republican is going to win (and I’m not saying that is the case next election), then I’d rather have a Republican that actually believes in Democracy as president.  That means Cheney.

  64. 64.

    germy shoemangler

    @Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:

    I’d prefer a weak, feckless republican president.  One we can run circles around.  A republican president without a house or senate majority.  A ribbon cutter. Someone who can’t do too much harm.

    Cheney is too strong and competent.  Those skills are desirable for the Jan. 6 committee, but would make her a dangerous president.

    I still think Elise Stephanik intends to be the first female president.

  65. 65.

    Kent

    I think we need a deck of playing cards to identify the major conspirators here.   Just like the Bush folks did during the Iraq invasion to identify their top targets.  Trump is obviously the top of the deck and the Ace of Spades.   Giuliani is obviously the Joker.  But then there are so many other spots on the deck to fill out.  Ginni Thomas is the Queen of Hearts I suspect.  We could have fun filling out the deck.

  66. 66.

    Kay

    @Brachiator: 

    I think campaign finance laws are really important as a check on corruption and not all unconnected to the issue.

    Trump would absolutely do this for 250 million dollars. Any of them would.

  67. 67.

    Kent

    @germy shoemangler: Ted Cruz would scare me the most.  Because he is the worst combination of venal and smart.  He wouldn’t make any of Trump’s mistakes of ignoring executive branch appointments.  He would bury the executive branch with horrid little mini-Cruzes like imagine four thousand Stephen Millers embedded throughout the executive branch.  That would be a Cruz administration.  And Cruz would play the long game always.

    Of all the prominent GOPers perhaps the least bad would be Romney.  Cheney I think has burned too many bridges.

  68. 68.

    ian

    @cmorenc:

    We can’t punish the plebian trump supports, you don’t have any proof the guys next to you at lunch committed a crime.  Those people are not really part of ‘Trump’s Team’, they are just angry fox news watching republicans.  The only way to change their minds is through relentless messaging.  Which probably won’t work for most of them- they will need to be outvoted for years.

    If you can’t reach your own neighbor with political messaging, it seems strange to ask a blog of pseudonymous people how to do so.

  70. 70.

    Redshift

    @cmorenc:

    So how does this demolition (eventually) reach the construction worker wearing a “Trump 24” red had I was next to in the lunch-line today at a Jersey Mikes’ sub place? Or my Hannity-watching neighbor? I guess the theory is, destroy the head, and the body will follow.

    I think the theory is that there are different levels of commitment. While it looks to us like there are two groups, the MAGA fanatics and not, there is undoubtedly more of a continuum. I read an essay a while back positing that a paradox that when democracies make people too comfortable, there’s a segment of people who long to be part of a grand struggle. (Which is suggested as the reason why so many insurrectionists were small business owners, etc. not people at the bottom.)

    If that’s the case, then filling the ether with the idea that they weren’t part of some grand struggle, they were chumps for a con man to line his pockets, could break through the bubble and peel off some of them. His crowds have been getting steadily smaller, so the idea that the feeling of grand purpose is fading does not seem unreasonable.

    The more who can be peeled off, or made less likely to join in when they try it again, the less likely they are to succeed.

  72. 72.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @trollhattan: the internet-left thing of wanting to make everybody President because they do One Good Thing is… irritating. Maybe the right does it, too, I wouldn’t know.

  78. 78.

    jl

    @Kent: “I think we need a deck of playing cards to identify the major conspirators here. ”

    That would be fun. We need some commemoratives and collectables for these hearings.

    But some problems need to be ironed out. For examps, not enough one-eyed jacks to go around.

  79. 79.

    Kay

    Weird color suit for Liz Cheney. She looks good in blue! Why veer from that? Now I’m distracted.

  80. 80.

    jl

    @Kent: ” the least bad would be Romney ”

    One of the few left who is willing and able to do policy that is not insane or malicious or both. Can count them on one hand.

    Even Romney would only be good if disciplined by a Democratic Congress, to force him to enact polices that are not crazy or malicious. Which IIRC, is how whatever successes he had as governor happened

    Edit: on his own, I think Romney’s ideas on policy would start and end with ‘Let’s give some tax breaks to hedge funds to do get that done”.

  84. 84.

    gene108

    @Redshift:

    I read an essay a while back positing that a paradox that when democracies make people too comfortable, there’s a segment of people who long to be part of a grand struggle.

    Saw documentary on Teddy Roosevelt. He felt there were no grand adventures or challenges for his generation to tackle. The Westward expansion was over. The borders of the country more or less fixed.

    I think the idea that the current generation has fallen short of what past generations have done or past generations have left little for current generations to do is a long running dilemma America has been dealing with for centuries.

    I can see a class of comfortable Americans wanting to be a part of a cause, no matter how dumb, twisted or evil, like overturning the 2020 election as their big challenge to be consequential.

  85. 85.

    jl

    @zhena gogolia: “apparently inebriated.”

    Cheney’s using misleading euphemism, for some reason. So much for her alleged virtue. Straight news organizations are reporting the truth: “a drunk Giuliani’.

  86. 86.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    @germy shoemangler:

    I’d prefer a weak, feckless republican president.  One we can run circles around.

    I felt that way until 2020 and Trump’s disasterous response to the pandemic and his manipulation by Putin. I want our people to win, but in lieu of that, I want someone minimally competent.

  87. 87.

    jl

    I just remembered Larry Wilmore’s joke on what Trump believes: Whatever he just heard  come out of his mouth. Wilmore wasn’t talking about criminal or civil liability, just the facts, ma’am.

  88. 88.

    Kropacetic

    @jl: Even Romney would only be good if disciplined by a Democratic Congress

    Romney, just like Trump, lied about basically everything his entire presidential campaign. Same product, just nicer packaging.

    So many Republicans act like Trump’s only flaw is his crassness. That’s the most normal, human, and acceptable thing about him.

  89. 89.

    debbie

    Former President Donald Trump just released a 12 page statement with footnotes on the January 6 investigation hearings and digs his heels into claims the election was “stolen” and rigged against him
    — Meridith McGraw (@meridithmcgraw) June 13, 2022

    Can’t believe he went to the trouble of footnotes.

    ETA: Tweeted out at 6:33 pm.

  93. 93.

    TriassicSands

    In order to convict Trump, they will have to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that he knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

    An impossible bar to clear.

    Fraud? That’s for little people. How else can incompetent rich crooks make more money?

    @germy shoemangler: Cheney is too strong and competent.  Those skills are desirable for the Jan. 6 committee, but would make her a dangerous president.

    Cheney is an extreme, right-wing, neocon warmonger. She’s her father’s spawn. There is room in a democracy for her, but not, we can hope, as a part of a dominant ideology.

  94. 94.

    Kropacetic

    @debbie: Can’t believe he went to the trouble of footnotes.

    It seems he misunderstood the concept, however, as the notes are all about the beauty of Ivanka’s feet.

  96. 96.

    NotMax

    FYI.

    The District of Columbia office that polices attorneys for ethical misconduct filed charges on Friday against President Donald Trump’s former attorney, Rudy Giuliani, over baseless claims he made in federal court alleging the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

    The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleges that Giuliani, who is a member of the D.C. bar, made baseless claims in federal court filings about the results of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania. Source

  97. 97.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @debbie: Former President Donald Trump just released a 12 page statement with footnotes

    that made me laugh out loud

  98. 98.

    TriassicSands

    In order to convict Trump, they will have to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that he knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

    An impossible bar to clear.

    Fraud? That’s for little people. How else can incompetent rich crooks make more money?

    @germy shoemangler: Cheney is too strong and competent.  Those skills are desirable for the Jan. 6 committee, but would make her a dangerous president.

    Cheney is an extreme, right-wing, neocon warmonger. She’s her father’s spawn. There is room in a democracy for her, but not, we can hope, as a part of a dominant ideology.

  102. 102.

    Geminid

    I don’t think Liz Cheney will ever be President, and I doubt if Robert Reich thinks she will either. This was just another way for Reich to throw shade on his party’s current leadership, which is something he does a lot.

  110. 110.

    Redshift

    @TriassicSands:

    In order to convict Trump, they will have to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that he knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

    An impossible bar to clear.

    This, like the insanity defense from this morning, seems like a very odd idea of how the law works. Rich people wouldn’t have expensive lawyers if they could all get off by saying “duhh, I don’t know nothing…”

    Prosecutions never depend on the testimony of the accused. Even so, sociopaths and con men who believe their own bullshit get convicted.

  111. 111.

    lgerard

    @jl:

    I just remembered Larry Wilmore’s joke on what Trump believes: Whatever he just heard come out of his mouth. Wilmore wasn’t talking about criminal or civil liability, just the facts, ma’am

    This reminds me of that immortal quote in 2016 from trump when he was asked who is advising him on foreign policy

    “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I’ve said a lot of things,” Trump said during a telephone interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
    ;

  113. 113.

    prostratedragon

    OT: In Chicago, we have been warned. And warned. And are still being warned, for about 10 minutes now.

  114. 114.

    Hoodie

    @Redshift:  Trump’s sociopathy is exactly what the legal system is designed to catch; he has the paradigmatic criminal mentality.  It’s unknowable whether he actually believes anything in particular,  but that’s not how the law works.  The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to conclude that he believes it, in this case, it is sufficient to indicate what a non-insane person would believe based on those facts, including the facts he was told, his acknowledgement that he received those facts, and the fact that he has next to zero credibility to claim otherwise because he has been proven to lie constantly.  That’s why sociopaths and psychopaths don’t get off, as that sort of personality disorder is not what qualifies for the insanity defense.   They have the requisite mens rea, i.e., they know what is right and wrong.  They just don’t care.   Trump knows what he’s doing, and he knows it’s wrong because he regularly accuses others of the same thing.  He just thinks it shouldn’t be a crime if he’s doing it because there is some greater truth that he is fulfilling.

  116. 116.

    Suzanne

    They are demolishing the Trump brand and team. Ivanka I think gets that, Jared does not.

    That’s the problem with having a mere brand instead of a genuine core of morality: brands are easy to destroy, and then there’s nothing left afterward.

  119. 119.

    El Muneco

    @MisterForkbeard: Does it really matter if he believed it or not? Sedition is a crime of fact, not a crime of intent – it doesn’t matter if you didn’t think the government was legit as long as it _was_, in point of fact, legit.

    If I truly – and provably – believe that I need to sacrifice my neighbor or the sun won’t come up tomorrow morning, that belief isn’t sufficient to get the charges dropped to manslaughter.

  123. 123.

    Spanky

    @JPL: I wanna know what’s up with that big orange thing lumbering through southern Ohio, with DC and me apparently in its path in about 6 hours. Looks like it has that classic derecho front to it.

  128. 128.

    Anyway

    Still haven’t gotten over SCOTUS overturning VA gov McDonnell’s corruption conviction. A federal jury convicted him and the Supremes reversed that. Rethuglican politicians can get away with anything (and do).

  131. 131.

    prostratedragon

    Lightning just started by me — Bowen Ave. in Bronzeville. I’m going to shut down, I think.

  133. 133.

    Matt McIrvin

    @MisterForkbeard: Under the George Costanza rule that it’s not a lie if you believe it, Donald Trump may have never told a lie in his life. Reality is infinitely malleable to him.

Comments are closed.