The extremists, backed by outside money, are working to take over county leadership including local boards.
They want to oust conservatives who are not "conservative" enough. . . meaning they are not reactionary coup-loving extremists. thenation.com/article/politi…
These extremists know that Trump planned and supported that coup and they love him anyway.
They know he supports white supremacists and they love him anyway.
I want Trump indicted, but I don't delude myself into thinking indicting Trump will "save" democracy.
Democrats tend to focus on national politics and national elections.
Extremists focus on local elections, perhaps because they hate the federal government, so they instinctively go for local control.
Screenshot so I don't give airtime to people who trade on despair, even though it seems stingy of me to deny people such an easy route to popularity and attention.
Facts:
🔹Nobody knows what is happening inside the DOJ except people who work there.
1/
🔹People who speculate on what is happening based on evidence are, well, speculating.
🔹One problem is distinguishing fact from speculation.
🔹Here's the shocker: Just because someone is a well-known lawyer doesn't mean they are right when they speculate.
2/
🔹Another shocker: Not all lawyers are smart or good lawyers.
🔹It can be very difficult to distinguish legal facts from legal opinions. If you're a nonlawyer, this is harder than distinguishing facts or speculation.
Some things are legal facts. Others are legal opinions.
3/
Me: 768 indictments so far, including Steve Bannon and a recent indictment for seditious conspiracy. . .
in an investigation that is ongoing. . .
in less than a year, during a pandemic.
Person: NONE OF THOSE COUNT.
⤵️The Trump Org, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Allen Weisselberg, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, George Nader, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas. . .
Two impeachments.
The Mueller team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies.
But none of those count, right?
Wrong about what?
I've said what has happened already.
I make no future predictions.
I doubt Trump wrote it, but the argument is "why do they need to pass a law against what we tried to do if what we tried to do was illegal?"
This is the attitude he has always had toward the law, and it's the attitude his father had.
1/
I'm not saying this will work as a defense.
As I said earlier, in the criminal context, most defenses fail (ask any criminal defense lawyer).
I'm saying that it's not an admission of guilt. It's a convoluted argument that what he wanted Pence to do wasn't illegal.
2/
In fact, the law that Democrats and a few others are trying to pass is to clarify the Electoral Count Act so people don't get the idea the vice president can win the election.
As I said earlier, Trump usually loses in court.
This is for the Court of Right-Wing Opinion.
3/
. . . when you're spinning with outrage, you can't think or plan. Too much outrage leads people to think it's all hopeless, which leads to cynicism, which leads to nihilism.
In life-threatening emergencies, cool heads save lives . . .