Dictator Trump--Part 1: The Dangers of an Imperial Presidency

Submitted by Robin Messing on Wed, 01/03/2024 - 5:17pm

Donald Trump and his allies plan to greatly strengthen the power of the president should Republicans win the presidency in 2024. If they get their way, many of the checks and balances that have constrained Trump's most illegal and dangerous policies will be removed in a second Trump Administration. This is from an extremely important New York Times article by Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman. I urge you to read it all.

Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

Trump Will Become a Dictator--Introduction/Table of Contents

Submitted by Robin Messing on Wed, 01/03/2024 - 4:10pm

I predicted that Donald Trump would be an existential threat to our democracy two weeks before the 2016 election. I stand by that prediction. Even though Trump didn't kill our democracy, he strained its guardrails during his presidency, and he nearly killed it on January 6. We got lucky that day. Had a few people made different decisions, our democracy would likely be dead.

Donald Trump's History Of Crying "Rigged Election"

Submitted by Robin Messing on Thu, 12/28/2023 - 3:36pm

Donald Trump’s claim that the election was rigged is nothing new. He was making that claim even BEFORE the election. In fact, that’s been his schtick for years. Jack Smith has indicated that he plans to make Trump's history of crying "rigged election" a focus of his upcoming trial.

In addition to this intrinsic evidence of false statements about the 2020 election, the Government will offer evidence reflecting the defendant’s historical record of making such claims. For example, as early as November 2012, the defendant issued a public tweet making baseless claims that voting machines had switched votes from then-candidate Romney to then-candidate Obama. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the defendant claimed repeatedly with no basis, that there was widespread voter fraud—including through public statements and tweets (for instance, on October 17, 2016, tweeting, “Of course there is large scale fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!”). The defendant’s false claims about the 2012 and 2016 elections are admissible because they demonstrate the defendant’s common plan of falsely blaming fraud for election results he does not like, as well as his motive, intent, and plan to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results and illegitimately retain power. . . .

 

To ensure the destabilizing impact of his widespread election fraud claims, in the run-up to the 2020 election, the defendant repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of presidential power if he lost the election. The Government will offer proof of this refusal as intrinsic evidence of the defendant’s criminal conspiracies because it shows his plan to remain in power at any cost—even in the face of potential violence. For instance, at a September 23, 2020, news conference the defendant was asked whether, “win, lose or draw in this election,” in light of “rioting in many cities across this country—red and—your so called red and blue states,” he would “commit to making sure there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election.” The defendant responded, “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster. And, and--”. A reporter interrupted the defendant and repeated, “I understand that, but people are rioting; do you commit to making sure there is a peaceful transferal of power?” The defendant responded, “I know. I know. We want to have—get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very trans—we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly; there’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it.”

Similarly, the Government will offer evidence that the defendant pursued the same strategy four years earlier, in 2016. In the presidential debate on October 19, 2016, the defendant was asked whether he would accept the results of that election, to which he responded that he would “look at it at the time.” The debate moderator followed up, “There is a tradition in this country— in fact, one of the prides of this country—is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner . . . and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?” The defendant responded, “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?” The defendant’s consistent refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power, dating back to the 2016 presidential campaign, is admissible evidence of his plan to undermine the integrity of the presidential transition process when faced with the possibility of an election result that he would not like, as well as his motive, intent, and plan to interfere with the implementation of an election result with which he was not satisfied.

Let's dive deeper into the type of evidence that Smith might bring up at trial.

Dominion Voting System Catches a Fox and Exposes a Kraken

Submitted by Robin Messing on Fri, 08/18/2023 - 5:11pm

Rudy Giuliani, and Sidney Powell (Team Kraken) and various “reporters/analysts” in the right-wing media pushed wild, unfounded theories about Dominion Voting System and Smartmatic voting machines. They claimed, among other things, that their machines cancelled Trump votes or switched Trump votes to Biden, and that they used software originally developed under Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to help him steal Venezuela’s election.

Here is the short version of Team Kraken's claims.

 

2000 Mules: A Dilapidated, Termite-Infested House Built By an Admitted Felon On a Foundation of Bullshit

Submitted by Robin Messing on Fri, 08/18/2023 - 8:51am

Those trying to defend Trump's Big Lie will inevitably point to the movie 2000 Mules as evidence that PROVES there were thousands of people (known as mules) who illegally gathered ballots collected by leftist non-government organizations and then deposited them in multiple ballot boxes. This movie was produced by Dinesh D'Souza and revolves around claims by True the Vote leaders Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht. They claim that geolocation data collected from millions of cell phones combined with video evidence proves their claim of massive ballot harvesting election fraud.

Here are eight reasons to laugh in the face of anyone who thinks 2000 Mules provides evidence of election fraud.

Indicting Donald Trump Is Not Election Interference. His Campaign Is Prosecution Interference

Submitted by Robin Messing on Fri, 06/09/2023 - 7:21pm

Donald Trump claims that investigating and indicting him is election interference. He's got that backwards. His running for office is an attempt to insulate himself from investigation and indictment. In other words, his campaign is prosecution interference. Note how early Trump declared his candidacy. There is no reason for him to have declared this early except to try to insulate himself from prosecution. It's not like he had to declare extra early to build name recognition. Trump declared his run for President on November 14, 2022—721 days before the November 5, 2024 primary.

Only four presidential candidates in the last 24 years have announced their run for president earlier than Donald Trump did.

How Dominion Voting Systems Can Get Fox News To Tell The Truth

Submitted by Robin Messing on Tue, 04/25/2023 - 5:05pm

Fox Corporation’s announcement of its settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is grossly inadequate. Note what they said in the announcement: “We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.” But most importantly, note what they didn’t say. They didn’t apologize. They didn’t even say “we agree with the Court’s rulings.” Nor did they admit any fault whatsoever. 

It is not that unusual for news organizations to make false statements either through mistake or lack of information. Reputable news organizations publish corrections when they make false statements. Those corrections specifically state what they got wrong and present more accurate information. They set the record straight. But this statement by Fox doesn’t even state WHAT they said that was false, (much less admit that their guests were lying to their audience.)

Someone who lived in a Fox bubble would have no idea how significant those false statements were. For all they knew, Fox could have said, “Dominion was used by 23 states in 2020”, whereas they were really used by 24. A Fox Bubbleboy would not know that the false statements made up the heart of Trump’s Big Lie. He would not know that the false statements were a driving factor behind the rampage on January 6. And notice that Fox did not state that they agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million. That key fact would have told Fox Bubbleboy that this was an important story and that the false statements about Dominion were serious and needed further explanation. And that’s a problem.

Ten Signs That Republicans Want To Destroy Our Democracy To Gain And Retain Power

Submitted by Robin Messing on Tue, 07/19/2022 - 5:25pm

This post is going to be extremely disjointed--consider it a collection of data points with one overarching theme. Today's Republican Party knows that its policies are unpopular and that the only way they can stay in power is to destroy our democracy. The LAST thing they want is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead, many of them want our country to become a White Christo-nationalist one-party state where the Republicans maintain a permanent lock on power. In other words, they want our country to become a tyranny of the minority. A common talking point among those who want to destroy our democracy is to say "We're a republic, not a democracy." If you hear someone say that, then shove this column down their throat.

 

And now, without further ado, ten signs that Republicans want to destroy our democracy.

Shove This Column Down The Throat Of The Next Person Who Tells You "We're a Republic, Not A Democracy"

Submitted by Robin Messing on Tue, 07/19/2022 - 4:55pm

Whenever I tweet that we are in danger of losing our democracy I almost INEVEITBALY get a response from some Trumpanzee or Putinista saying "America is a republic. It is not a democracy." This pablum is intended to be Novocain for the brain. It is designed to confuse the issue and cause us to lose sight that the Founders wanted a government that represented the will of the people, and not the will of an autocrat. True, the Founders defined who "the people" were far too narrowly. That is why we have had to work to form a "more perfect union." But we must not lose sight of the aspirational goal that President Lincoln set forth in his Gettysburg Address--that we should have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." 

Pages

Subscribe to Robin Messing RSS