HCR writes of Trump's conspiracies as he allegedly acted "against the wishes of the American people." Is HCR peddling a weaponized conspiracy theory that depends on the groundless and baseless assumption that Trump KNEW that his charges of election fraud were false? HCR appears to be acting as a prosecuting spin doctor, not as a reporter…
HCR writes of Trump's conspiracies as he allegedly acted "against the wishes of the American people." Is HCR peddling a weaponized conspiracy theory that depends on the groundless and baseless assumption that Trump KNEW that his charges of election fraud were false? HCR appears to be acting as a prosecuting spin doctor, not as a reporter or a judge. Is that irresponsible? Is HCR catering to paid subscribers who want their daily Kool-aid fix?
Seriously, what reason is there to conclude that Trump KNEW that his charges that the election was stolen were false? Isn't that what trials and juries are for? There are clear and plausible alternative possibilities here. Trump could have been holding fast to an irrational belief that the election had been stolen, and/or there was actually sufficient evidence to support such a self-serving belief.
Another possibility is that Trump and certain military leaders knew of evidence that couldn't be disclosed without undermining national security: Remember the disappearing Kraken, which was/is a suite of secret computer programs designed to spy on everybody everywhere and perhaps... um, my inner conspiracy theorist is getting all stirred up by possible permutations involving secret military briefings of selected Supreme Court justices, oh my!
Christine, legal jargon is tiresome to people who haven't invested in knowing the basics. (I've been learning the hard way, as a do-it-yourself plaintiff in two lawsuits.)
HCR, in her letters, avoids legal talk, probably because it is tiresome.
The problem is, around here people think Trump is obviously guilty, without knowing how weak the cases against him might be.
I know enough to identify basic issues, and I will continue sharing my thoughts with those who are interested.
John, jargon of any kind can be tiresome. However, jargon is a kind of shorthand and most occupations has its own. I don’t envy learning lessons the hard way...it can be tough.
I am guessing HCR doesn’t use legalese because she is not an attorney but a historian.
The Supreme Court arguments for and against the constitutional right to abortion hinge around the legal doctrine of "substantive due process," which makes most people's eyes glaze over when they try to get into it.
Thought question: How can we function as a democracy if we don't even know what the Supreme Court is arguing about?
Gail Adams, presumably you are already aware that the indictment depends on the presupposition that Biden's election was fair and legal.
If Trump's defense can undermine that presupposition in the minds of the jury, then they can paint the "overt acts" (a conspiracy charge always needs an "overt act") in a wholly different light.
This case will give Trump's legal team subpoena power to ask all sorts of nosy questions and demand records. This is what got denied in almost all of the post-election lawsuits: They got dosmissed before they reached the "discovery" phase with subpoena power.
HCR writes of Trump's conspiracies as he allegedly acted "against the wishes of the American people." Is HCR peddling a weaponized conspiracy theory that depends on the groundless and baseless assumption that Trump KNEW that his charges of election fraud were false? HCR appears to be acting as a prosecuting spin doctor, not as a reporter or a judge. Is that irresponsible? Is HCR catering to paid subscribers who want their daily Kool-aid fix?
Seriously, what reason is there to conclude that Trump KNEW that his charges that the election was stolen were false? Isn't that what trials and juries are for? There are clear and plausible alternative possibilities here. Trump could have been holding fast to an irrational belief that the election had been stolen, and/or there was actually sufficient evidence to support such a self-serving belief.
Another possibility is that Trump and certain military leaders knew of evidence that couldn't be disclosed without undermining national security: Remember the disappearing Kraken, which was/is a suite of secret computer programs designed to spy on everybody everywhere and perhaps... um, my inner conspiracy theorist is getting all stirred up by possible permutations involving secret military briefings of selected Supreme Court justices, oh my!
John, it is tiresome!
Christine, legal jargon is tiresome to people who haven't invested in knowing the basics. (I've been learning the hard way, as a do-it-yourself plaintiff in two lawsuits.)
HCR, in her letters, avoids legal talk, probably because it is tiresome.
The problem is, around here people think Trump is obviously guilty, without knowing how weak the cases against him might be.
I know enough to identify basic issues, and I will continue sharing my thoughts with those who are interested.
John, jargon of any kind can be tiresome. However, jargon is a kind of shorthand and most occupations has its own. I don’t envy learning lessons the hard way...it can be tough.
I am guessing HCR doesn’t use legalese because she is not an attorney but a historian.
I'll give a brief example.
The Supreme Court arguments for and against the constitutional right to abortion hinge around the legal doctrine of "substantive due process," which makes most people's eyes glaze over when they try to get into it.
Thought question: How can we function as a democracy if we don't even know what the Supreme Court is arguing about?
Again, you haven’t read the indictment so your comment is silly.
Gail Adams, presumably you are already aware that the indictment depends on the presupposition that Biden's election was fair and legal.
If Trump's defense can undermine that presupposition in the minds of the jury, then they can paint the "overt acts" (a conspiracy charge always needs an "overt act") in a wholly different light.
This case will give Trump's legal team subpoena power to ask all sorts of nosy questions and demand records. This is what got denied in almost all of the post-election lawsuits: They got dosmissed before they reached the "discovery" phase with subpoena power.
Get back to me when you've read the indictment.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-2-2023/comment/21801545
And yet again, read the indictment.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-2-2023/comment/21801545
Yawn.
Troll