#Trump inv

[stevelieber]

The creeps beind Project 2025 secretly recorded as they explain how they’re going to build a Trumpist government:

“you don’t actually, like, send them to their work emails,” in order to avoid disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/russ-vought-project-2025-trump-secret-recording-invs/index.html

Please share? People need to know who these people are and what they would do if Trump manages to get back in the oval office.

[time-being]

There's a news story about the Trump shooter and what he did in the days before Saturday. The story is fine, but contains a hilarious paragraph.

Obviously the spokesperson had to respond somehow, but it's a little absurd that the journalist reached out to them about it anyway. It would be really unlikely for Home Depot to endorse Crooks's acts.

Source: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/07/15/us/thomas-crooks-trump-rally-shooting-invs

[mcspocky]

Olympic Gold Medalist Imane Khelif Files Harassment Claim in Paris

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

DERSHOWITZ: Gore's team and I contested 2000 vote. Why go after Trump?

Trump "supposedly" lost GA by approximately 10,000+ votes. Stacey Abrams spent 3 years pretending to be GA's governor after losing by 30,000+ votes.🤔

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Al Gore, his legal team and I tried to find uncounted presidential votes, lobbied officials and fought in the courts in 2000. The only difference now? The candidate's name is Donald Trump... That's why this prosecution is an outrage

By Alan Dershowitz For Dailymail.Com12:17 EDT 16 Aug 2023 , updated 12:56 EDT 16 Aug 2023

Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard Law School Professor and author of 'Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law'

Electoral challenges have long been part of American history. 

Only now are they being criminalized.

I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida's presidential vote in 2000.

A margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W. Bush rather than Vice President Al Gore won the state and, thus, the electoral college vote.

I was convinced then and I am convinced now that this result was wrong.

No one was indicted, disbarred, disciplined or even much criticized for those efforts, yet here we stand today.

President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants has been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more, under a law designed to take down criminal organizations, known as the RICO Act.

Should Al Gore have been charged in 2000?

What about me?

I represented the voters of Palm Beach County, many of whom voted by mistake for Pat Buchanan rather than Gore because of the infamous butterfly ballots and hanging chads that prevented their votes from being accurately counted.

During the course of our challenges, many tactics similar to those employed in 2020 were attempted.

Lawyers wrote legal memoranda outlining possible courses of conduct, including proposing a slate of alternate electors, who would deliver our preferred election results to Congress.

A margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W. Bush rather than Vice President Al Gore (above) won the state and, thus, the electoral college vote.

I represented the voters of Palm Beach County, many of whom voted by mistake for Pat Buchanan rather than Gore because of the infamous butterfly ballots (above) and hanging chads that prevented their votes from being accurately counted.

Electoral challenges have long been part of American history, only now are they being criminalized. I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida's presidential vote in 2000. (Above) Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard Law School Professor and author of 'Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law'

Now, Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani, along with others, are accused of conspiracy to commit forgery and false statements for drafting their list of alternate electors.

In 2000, Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties in which we thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600 votes that would change the result.

This new indictment features Trump's phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which was captured in an audio recording. In the conversation, Trump asks Raffensperger to 'find' 12,000 votes.

In my mind, this call is among the most exculpatory pieces of evidence. Trump was entitled as a candidate to ask a Georgia state official to locate votes that he believes were not counted.

In 2000, attempts were made to influence various Florida officials to recount the votes.

Now, the former president's request that Georgia's Republican Speaker of the House reconsider the count is being charged as soliciting a public official to violate his oath.

Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties in which we thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600 votes that would change the result. (Above) Paln Beach, Florida County elections officials conduct presidential vote recount on November  11, 2000

President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants has been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more, under a law designed to take down criminal organizations, known as the RICO Act.

But if similar behavior was legal in 2000, how could it be illegal in 2023?

In the end, all those efforts in Florida failed when the Supreme Court in a five-to-four vote ordered the recounts stopped thereby turning the election over to President George W. Bush.

I wrote a book entitled Supreme Injustice, condemning the Supreme Court's decision and insisting that the election had been stolen from Gore and improperly handed to the candidate who received fewer votes.

The book was a bestseller, featured in front page reviews in the New York Times and other major publications. Most Americans thought that those challenging the Florida vote had acted in good faith, even though the courts ruled against them.

What's different today is that many observers do not believe that Trump and his advisors were sincere when they declared that he had won the election. But that doesn't make what they did a crime.

The Georgia indictment hinges on the allegation that Trump was lying in order to corruptly prevent the inauguration of the candidate who won the election fair and square.

Conspiracy and RICO violations are specific 'intent' crimes. In order to secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove a personalized agreement to join a criminal activity.

That will be an incredibly difficult case to make, especially regarding Trump himself who — to my knowledge – has never wavered from his belief that the election was stolen.

In the end, all those efforts in Florida failed when the Supreme Court in a five-to-four vote ordered the recounts stopped thereby turning the election over to President George W. Bush.

Most Americans thought that those challenging the Florida vote had acted in good faith, even though the courts ruled against them. (Above) Demonstrations at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC where justices determined whether the Florida recount could continue

He is wrong, but again, that is not enough to prove him guilty.

The First Amendment and general criminal law principles protect the right to be wrong, especially if that right is based on an honest mistake or belief.

Many point to the claim that Trump associates allegedly stole voting machine data, but that accusation is hotly contested. The jury will have to assess the credibility of each side.

The fundamental truth of this indictment is that if the evidence of specific crimes were compelling, there would be no need to charge under the onerous 'intent' requirements of RICO and conspiracy laws. The proof is not compelling, because these electoral challenges have precedent.

Once again, as with the preceding three Trump indictments, the law is being stretched to its limits in order to snare a former president.

'Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime,' is the infamous Soviet-era boast attributed to Joseph Stalin's chief of the secret police.

Is this really what our country has become?

When prosecutions are rooted in the fickle ground of politics and not the solid rock of justice everything will crumble.

[an-aura-about-you]

hey it's time for more Handbook for Mortals!

Chapter 11:

when we last left our hero, Scheherazade was leaving the bar after an altercation in which Mac nearly threw hands with a dude flirting with her. no, this did nothing to resolve the matter of whether they are actually dating or not.

on to Chapter 11: The Devil

-oh hey, it's the card that showed up in Zade's reading earlier that she completely ignored. I wonder if that will mean anything for this chapter.

-it is now several weeks later and Zade still hasn't made a decision in the love triangle situation. just, what? it's wild that we're expected to care about this when we're skipping over these huge spans of time that COULD be used to develop the relationships.

-"The cards had become quite infuriating because they refused to give me an answer, which was something I'd never experienced before." I find this surprising. Not that the cards refused to give her an answer, we already know I don't buy that bullshit excuse for one second. No, what I find surprising is that this is the FIRST time this has happened to Zade given her lack of introspection and tendency to ignore trump cards in her spread. it's painfully obvious to me that the answer is right there, but Zade is not seeing it because the answer is, "you're the only one who can actually make this choice, you ding-dong!" and she is determined to ignore it. (in light of this, it seems fitting that the chapter is named after the card she ignored before.)

if we wanna get further into it, the thing Zade is doing wrong on her spread is probably asking the same fruitless question over and over again, that being, "Who should I choose between Mac and Jackson?" and not the question she SHOULD be asking, which would be, "What is stopping me from making a decision?" or, perhaps more effectively, "What do I need to do to move forward on this matter?" could be either or even both since it would be worth a full spread to figure out what's stopping Zade from making her choice before trying to prod what to do about it.

Witch Vamp recently started a youtube channel with tarot spreads and actually has one perfect for this:

it's amazing that Zade's agency is so lacking that she's not even a factor in her own tarot readings. her love life is not something she is participating in but rather something that is happening to her, right down to the fact that earlier in the book she stated she wasn't even looking for a boyfriend initially and now somehow is pseudo-dating two guys.

and it is possible to write a good story in which things just happen to a protagonist and they move on, but the story Sarem is writing is not the kind that works with that sort of structure. so instead of being an active participant in her own life, Zade is limply dragged by the arm through it like a child's doll. she's not even kicking and screaming about it!

(speaking of kicking and screaming about it, figuratively anyway, a reminder to go read Ella Enchanted if you haven't already. it is a damn good kids book.)

-by the way I am STILL on the first page of this goddamn chapter.

-as far as what Zade's actually doing while pondering all of this, she's sitting at her vanity at work doing her makeup. just for fun. literally just playing with it.

remember how the last chapter ended with her leaving the girls' conversation before she started banging her head on the table? that she's no good at that girl-bonding stuff?

and now she's engaging in an activity suitable for the standard teenage girl slumber party.

is it exhausting, Zade? pretending to be so above it all?

-she tells us putting the makeup on was just a way for her to let out some nervous energy, which then builds and she has to calm herself down, but why? why is she nervous? what's happening to cause this? it's ok to depict a character having an anxiety attack and how it can come out of nowhere, but it's never been established that this happens to Zade and, as far as I know, never happens again.

-Jackson pops in to invite her to his show later that night, but Zade can't because she's working on a new illusion with Charles. this is the first time this new illusion is mentioned, but I think Sarem was trying to set it up ages ago when Zade mentioned "the premiere" to Carrot Top and Wayne Newton. but given that that was weeks and weeks ago, that seems like the wrong time to ask.

-Jackson and Zade agree to do a movie date some other time, but uh-oh! Jackson forgot his sunglasses! so Zade grabs them to give them back, just in time to get to the hallway and see Charles and Zeb having a conversation. and then we get this gem of a line:

I always jump to the conclusion that something is about me and so that's where my mind went first.

-when the two notice Zade, Charles says, "Hello, Zade. Is everything okay, dear?" god, it's just. idk, it feels so obvious to me that that's such a dad thing to say, especially compared to all the things others call Zade like "sweets" or "pretty girl."

-when they leave to go to Charles's office to discuss the matter in private, Zeb waves at Zade with a half smile "--which I guess was better than nothing--" like, girl, he is actually trying a little???? what the fuck are you doing to try mending that bridge with Zeb?

-oh hey, turns out Mac had a rough week because equipment had broken down, causing issues during the show.

I Wonder If Any Of That Is Related To The Technical Issues Sofia Has Been Noticing And If Maybe Some Of That Could Have Been Resolved Before It Disrupted The Show If You Had Taken Her And Her Trauma Seriously.

-oh my god. I was not prepared for this.

I said it with disappointment in my voice, because I really was disappointed that I couldn't go...

I mean. I know girl. that's why you said it with disappointment in your voice.

-the thing she can't go to is a group camping trip that was her idea, and she can't go because she's working on the new illusion. why did she suggest a camping trip if she knew she was going to be developing a new illusion?

-we don't get to see that camping trip, not even in italics. we just skip ahead to when Mac comes back and Zade makes dinner for him.

-omg so Zade goes over the outfits she and Mac are wearing and she tells us she's wearing black leggings, black boots, and a grey see-through shirt, but she doesn't mention what she's wearing under the shirt. I know she usually wears bralettes under her see-through shirts due to some other shopping I didn't touch on when she went dress shopping in Chapter 7, but she doesn't mention it. guess our girl's just having a boobs out kinda day. I can respect that.

-"I feel very underdressed." I mean yeah I would too Zade.

-ohhhhh here we go. the two are standing by the little table Zade keeps by her door for keys, mail, and other going out stuff, you know the kind. and on it are tickets to David Copperfield and a picture of Charles and Zade at dinner.

-Mac is understandably confused and upset about this because Zade skipped out on the camping trip for work and now, as far as he's concerned, she blew that off for dinner and a show with Charles. she had even told Mac to go on the camping trip because she was going to be working the entire time and would be no fun to hang around with if he stayed.

-Zade misses all of this and says, "A girl's gotta eat, doesn't she?" just, wow. that's ice cold.

-Mac is not taking any of this well, his voice even dropping to a monotone as he keeps asking Zade about what's going on.

-Zade asks him what he's trying to imply, wanting him to just tell her what he's getting at, but she does absolutely NOTHING to assuage his concerns. it's clear that the implication is that she's fooling around with Charles, and, to steal a bit from Krimson Rogue, all Zade would have to do is

it's so hypocritical, Zade wanting honesty from Mac while offering him none.

also, idk if there's any taboo for Zade to talk about Charles being her father the way there is for him, but it seems like there should be if we want this scene to actually work as a red herring. I know there's some writing advice going around to make it so your characters can't say what they mean plainly because yeah, people talk around it, people sidestep, people aren't articulate. but for something like this, there really needs to be a good reason why, and Sarem doesn't offer us anything.

and the chapter ends with Mac just letting this go for now and asking about dinner.

damn. Mac, you're not even dating her, but just leave her. she is no good for you.

[nodynasty4us]

From the March 2, 2024 blog post:

Trump knows his voter base includes both pro-Israel religious rightists and neo-fascist anti-Semites who complain about "globalism." Trump doesn't want to offend Evangelicals, but undoubtedly he's also being advised by the anti-Semitic Steve Bannon and others not to show too much support for a "globalist war." (Feel free to mentally put triple parentheses around the word "globalist.")

...

So it's complicated for him, and therefore he's probably been advised to say nothing. Instead, he says he's strong where Biden is weak, and therefore he'll magically scare every country in the world so much that no one will dare to fight a war when he's president, and he's also such a great dealmaker that he'll instantly end all the wars that already exist. And millions of voters think that's plausible, because they saw him being a strong, tough dealmaker four fourteen seasons on TV.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

Traitors engaged in a slow moving revolution against the rest of us.

[foreverlogical]

Democratic lawmakers called out their Republican counterparts for their muted response to Trump's criminal cases amid the Hunter Biden investigation.

[kramlabs]

Roy Cohn: McCarthy, RFK, Trump and KAL 007

[mongowheelie]

Expert warns Trump is putting all Black prosecutors at risk with racist threats - Raw Story - Celebrating 19 Years of Independent Journalism

It's what he wants!

[nedsecondline]

Trump’s businesses are raking in millions of dollars from Republican political campaigns – including his own | CNN Politics

Republican candidates and political groups are on track to spend more on Trump’s businesses this year than any year since 2016, federal campaign finance data shows. — Read on www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/politics/trump-businesses-campaign-spending-invs/index.html