“Under the First Amendment, the question of whether the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from President Trump must be decided in ‘the free marketplace of ideas,’ not in criminal prosecution.” Wrong, the outcome of the election is decided by the Electoral College, even though it has always been, and remains, anti-democracy.
A rapist, liar, tax cheat, traitor, conman, attempted coup plotter & thief of national security documents would like the world to pretend that we didn’t hear & see him send his cult followers down to The Capitol with their weapons to fight like hell for him & Hang Mike Pence.
All the words said since he came down the escalator in 2015 are on video so prosecutors should just Press Play.
All three arguments - the stronger, the weaker, and the weakest - are hogwash, if that doesn’t dispraise hogs. They amount to this: nothing can be proven perfectly by fact and reason, therefore only a plebiscite can ever prove the truth of anything in a democracy. What nonsense. Lawyers should be disbarred for filing such drooling drivel.
These are the legal filings of a desperate man. Trump knows damn well he lost in a free and fair election. His over sized ego will never allow him to admit that, though.
I don't think they have any expectation of potential success on the _legal_ front. But I do think these were written with an audience in mind - the pro-Trumpist press and pro-Trumpist opinion leaders, who will be happy to de- and re-contextualize and disnuance the text.
Also, while I don't think Trumpism meets any reasonable definition of fascism, I think Trumpists sometimes do fash-ish things (thankyou, George Santos, for adding a new twist to -ish). And that this is one of those actions, intended as fuel for the American Squadristi.
(When I say Trumpism, I'm referring to the American part of the movement that currently has Trump as its figurehead. I _do_ think there's Trumpism without Trump, but I haven't yet encountered another concise term that refers to the anti-democratic, pro-autocratic far right in America (and many other countries we used to think of as democracies). There certainly _are_ fascists in America (I think they prefer "fash"), both out & closeted and AFAICT they overwhelmingly ally themselves with Trumpists.)
Along with the previous "presidential immunity" motion, these latest - and last? - attempts to gain dismissal of the DC indictment is really a case of throwing as much dreck (ketchup?) against the wall in hoping that SOMETHING will stick.
Basically, it's the delay-delay-delay tactic by appeal...what else is new?
What a load of garbage. We’ve been determining the outcome of elections in this country for close to two and a half centuries. Now this sore loser tells us we can’t determine who has won an election, or whether an election has been “stollen (sic).” I would make a Rule 11 request for them to withdraw it.
“Under the First Amendment, the question of whether the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from President Trump must be decided in ‘the free marketplace of ideas,’ not in criminal prosecution.” Wrong, the outcome of the election is decided by the Electoral College, even though it has always been, and remains, anti-democracy.
A rapist, liar, tax cheat, traitor, conman, attempted coup plotter & thief of national security documents would like the world to pretend that we didn’t hear & see him send his cult followers down to The Capitol with their weapons to fight like hell for him & Hang Mike Pence.
All the words said since he came down the escalator in 2015 are on video so prosecutors should just Press Play.
All three arguments - the stronger, the weaker, and the weakest - are hogwash, if that doesn’t dispraise hogs. They amount to this: nothing can be proven perfectly by fact and reason, therefore only a plebiscite can ever prove the truth of anything in a democracy. What nonsense. Lawyers should be disbarred for filing such drooling drivel.
These are the legal filings of a desperate man. Trump knows damn well he lost in a free and fair election. His over sized ego will never allow him to admit that, though.
They also strike me as performative filings meant to placate a screaming client and not driven by lawyers with any expectation of potential success.
I don't think they have any expectation of potential success on the _legal_ front. But I do think these were written with an audience in mind - the pro-Trumpist press and pro-Trumpist opinion leaders, who will be happy to de- and re-contextualize and disnuance the text.
Also, while I don't think Trumpism meets any reasonable definition of fascism, I think Trumpists sometimes do fash-ish things (thankyou, George Santos, for adding a new twist to -ish). And that this is one of those actions, intended as fuel for the American Squadristi.
(When I say Trumpism, I'm referring to the American part of the movement that currently has Trump as its figurehead. I _do_ think there's Trumpism without Trump, but I haven't yet encountered another concise term that refers to the anti-democratic, pro-autocratic far right in America (and many other countries we used to think of as democracies). There certainly _are_ fascists in America (I think they prefer "fash"), both out & closeted and AFAICT they overwhelmingly ally themselves with Trumpists.)
Agreed.
There’s “ oversized ego” and there’s comically super overinflated ego....
True that.
Along with the previous "presidential immunity" motion, these latest - and last? - attempts to gain dismissal of the DC indictment is really a case of throwing as much dreck (ketchup?) against the wall in hoping that SOMETHING will stick.
Basically, it's the delay-delay-delay tactic by appeal...what else is new?
Just as tRump threw ketchup against the wall, his lawyers seem to be trying the same strategy hoping that something, anything will stick.
Wow. Bizarre arguments, indeed. Thanks for pointing out these claims.
Hopefully the judge will defer ruling on all of these motions (except the immunity motion) until after trial.
Lawyers really grasping at straws here.
This is just insane.
What a load of garbage. We’ve been determining the outcome of elections in this country for close to two and a half centuries. Now this sore loser tells us we can’t determine who has won an election, or whether an election has been “stollen (sic).” I would make a Rule 11 request for them to withdraw it.
Is this a joke? Are these really
attorneys that dreamed this up and filed it? Or did Trump
write these up? Here we go with the stupid "alternative facts" in law.