220
We’re delusional, we’re unfathomably poorly informed, and we’d like to be put back in charge of the United States.
Perfect summary.
I mean, that's the defense he uses with financial matters...
He tells the IRS his holdings are worthless so he doesn't have to pay as much taxes, then tells banks those same holdings are worth over a billion so they should give him loans.
His supporters call that "smart" and they'll call this "smart" too. Because they're 100% ok with bald face lying if it furthers their goals.
And they have been long before trump was a politician. Republicans just don't see an issue with lying if it benefits them.
It's never been about being right, it's always been about being the winners in an "us vs. Them" capacity. They don't even have defined goals, so long as they win. This manifests itself most often as opposition to anything the other party tries to do. Not for the good of the country, not for the benefit of the electorate, just to make sure the others aren't winning, and only that.
That is the defined goal: Fascism. Power for power’s sake.
“Deplorables” ended up being too kind of a word for shitbags that support this walking crime spree.
I call them kill-billies.
They don't even deserve baskets.
According to Meadows’ testimony, he believed at the time that he was advancing the executive branch’s interest in “accurate and fair elections” and helping resolve Trump’s concerns about voter fraud in order to eliminate a “roadblock” to the “transfer of power”—in other words, that he did not understand, in January 2021, that Donald Trump was involved in election litigation for selfish reasons.
You know what? It doesn't fucking matter what Meadows knew or didn't know. The operation of elections for federal offices are handled by the states.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
Clause 2 Electors
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The choosing of Electors is an authority of the States, and specifically not the federal government. The very moment that Raffensperger call drifted into the federal executive branch putting its fingers into state authority, Meadows should have left that call.
And don't fucking tell me that Meadows had no idea what that call was to be about before it took place, even if he wasn't directly informed. "Trump is contesting election results all over the place, and now he wants to talk to the Georgia Secretary of State" is plenty of information - which Meadows was in possession of at the time - to indicate that arranging and participating in this call was not "in the course of his duty as White House Chief of Staff." And he did it anyway.
Edit: Ooo I just noticed something: "[N]o Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." As I recall, at least one of the indicted people in Georgia, who was a fake elector, was also a Georgia state Senator. And that guy is one of the people trying to argue that his case should be removed to federal court, because he was "acting as a federal officer" due to his "elector" status. He's disqualified from being an Elector by A2 S1 C2, unless "United States" above refers to federal officers. I don't have enough background there to know how "United States" is interpreted without a bunch more research (which someone should definitely do).
Trump is still new at this; he's a political outsider! That means you don't have to know the law or abide by it.
And here I was always told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
I don't think anyone's mens rea matters. It doesn't matter what Trump or anyone else says they "believed" about election fraud. There are legal ways to explore and address election fraud, and that is through the courts. Trump and his gang sought relief through the courts, 62 times, and the courts all said, "Nope, you got nothing."
It doesn't matter what anyone believed; it doesn't suddenly become legal to explore and address election fraud in illegal ways.
And here I was always told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Well, that's just something people say that is often misunderstood. "You don't have to know the exact statute to fulfill the elements of a described criminal act" is more appropriate.
I don't think anyone's mens rea matters.
It absolutely matters. But again, you can "with corrupt intent" do something that violates the law without actively thinking "I mean to do this in a corrupt way." Similarly, you can "with the intent to permanently deprive" take a car that doesn't belong to you without actively thinking "I mean that this person should never see their car again. Mens rea has a lot more nuance than you propose, and if it didn't, almost nobody would be convicted of anything.
I should have been clearer: I don't think anyone's mens rea matters with regard to federal officials taking actions outside of state courts to affect the outcome of a federal election.
States are responsible and authoritative with regards to elections for the office of President of the United States. The legal course to challenge election results in a state is through state courts in that state. There is no provision whereby federal officers, up to and including POTUS, are allowed to directly petition (and, in this case, arguably strongarm and threaten) the Secretary of State for the state in which they want to challenge election results.
Is it legal for the executive branch to take non-state court actions to effect the outcome of a presidential election in that state? If not (and it would seem that that is not legal, based on the Constitution clearly giving federal election authority to the States), then intent or state of mind is not relevant. The action itself is illegal.
Edit: And if mens rea is necessary, then it can be demonstrated through "acting purposely" or "acting negligently," I would think. Acting purposely, because the conscious intent was to effect the outcome of a state election without the authority to do so. Acting negligently for failing to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for their circumstances, because it is not reasonable for a federal office holder to believe they have the authority to interfere in state elections.
Can we get you onto the Justice Department prosecution team immediately? I REALLY want to see someone on the stand asked, “What exactly was Mr. Meadows’s role in the presidential election process? And given that, how constitutional were his actions, on a scale of 1-10?”
Not a lawyer (although a few people in my personal life have suggested I should have been one), just a reasonable person, so I don't qualify for the participation you suggest.
I have to think that a federal prosecution team has some reason for wanting to demonstrate mens rea, at the very least to make the case stronger. But I don't personally see any rationale for it being required to prove guilt, and I think that my reasoning for mens rea not being required is sound. I am more than happy to have anyone with an actual legal background point out any errors I make.
IANAL, but that sounds right.
In a sane world Trump would have been immediately impeached and thrown out of office for the phone call the moment it was reported, charged with trying to overthrow the election, and then put in jail to rot for the rest of his days.
Too bad we don't live in a sane world.
The impeachment happened at least.
it's a shame that that appears to be a meaningless action that has no relation to criminal charges whatsoever
What do you mean, "back?" TYT has been covering this since it happened and love to replay the audio of it constantly.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
220 points (98.2% liked)
politics
25456 readers
577 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS