Ted Cruz enters the "dumbest conceivable whataboutism" sweepstakes
It's worth noting here that the House is not required to use the Brandenburg standard for incitement, but even under that standard the case against Trump is strong. The 1/6 speech in particular is the definition of speech foreseeably leading to "imminent lawless action"
There is plenty of evidence that Trump intended these foreseeable results, starting with the fact that he was privately pleased to see the insurrection occurring and his only initial public reaction to it was to attack Mike Pence
Thank you for pointing this out Rep. Ruskin!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Blue! Jack Johnson! There's A Riot Goin' On! Songs of Love and Hate! Hunky Dory! Tago Mago! The Fillmore albums by Aretha and the Allmans! Pretty rich vein there.
I mean, these lies are too obvious and unsophisticated to rise to the level of "gaslighting"
Particularly ridiculous is his attempt to treat "negligence" and "incitement" as separate questions. Trump's negligence on 1/6 is very strong evidence that the insurrection was the intended and desired result of his 77 days of incitements!
The Slave Power, Taney Court very much included, were true pioneers in the “look at how you forced us to do what we would have done anyway” school of rhetoric now being used to defend Senate Republicans
Just an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court writing the incoming president to inform him that the Court was about to rule that the primary opposition party was organized for an illegal purpose, all very normal
I think I've said this before, but my favorite detail about Dred Scott is that Taney was so upset about being brutally owned by Curtis and McLean that he insisted on completely re-writing the opinion he read at oral argument and wouldn't let them see it before it was published
This, precisely. The kinds of economic problems generally identified here -- unpaid tax liens, credit card debt, past bankruptcies -- are perfectly consistent with the resentment over losing status that is the critical driving force of Trumpism
Baker v. Carr day, so we can discuss Felix Frankfurter essentially losing his mind in fury over losing, even though his dissent is premised on one of the most transparently stupid arguments in the history of the U.S. Reports
"Appellants invoke the right to vote and their votes counted. But they are permitted to vote and their votes counted. Their complaint is simply that President Putin has created a basis of representation with which they are dissatisfied."
And, yet, Roberts would basically recycle Frankfurter's logic in Rucho, denying citizens in states like Wisconsin anything resembling a democratic election. Whee!