D/S/C ideology, Daniel Goodwyn, DOJ, Doug Mackey, FBI, Hillary Clinton, January 6, KKK, Kristina Wong, Southern Poverty Law Center, the sociel contract, the thin blue line, Tucker Carlson
Americans are coming to the realization we live under a two-tiered system of justice, one for D/S/Cs, the Uniparty and their supporters, and one for Normal Americans, particularly any who run afoul of D/S/C ideology and lunacy. Herein, gentle readers, I provide two examples, one from Jan 6, and another that illustrates the corruption and politicization of the DOJ (so does J6, but you catch my meaning). We begin with Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker:
By any standard, the treatment of January 6 defendants has been a disgrace to the Department of Justice, the D.C. federal bench, and the Constitution. Scores of people have been held in inhumane conditions in the D.C. Gulag, denied their constitutional right to speedy trial, and denied access to exculpatory evidence. The blanket media coverage excoriating them as ‘violent insurrectionists’ has prevented these constitutional outrages from becoming a national scandal.
But there is a chance, a small chance, that the release of CCTV Capitol video by Speaker McCarthy may change the national consensus (other than in conservative media) that there is nothing to see here, they are getting what they deserve. One such instance powered by the video release is the case of Daniel Goodwyn, who faces federal prison via DOJ prosecutors. Goodwyn’s crime was simply walking through an open door into the Capitol, spending less than a minute inside, and immediately leaving when asked to do so by a Capitol policeman.
Take the link, gentle readers, and read the transcript from Tucker Carlson Tonight on 03-14-23. The video Carlson displayed clearly demonstrated Goodwyn walked into the building, through open doors, long after the building had been breached. No one, despite many Capitol Police Officers present, stopped him; no one told him he was prohibited from entering. He walked perhaps 25 feet into the building where an officer asked him to leave. He immediately did. This took 35 seconds. He did not break in, damaged nothing and assaulted no one, but our weaponized, blood-thirsty DOJ is prosecuting him.
Professional police officers know the thin blue line holds only so long as most people are willing to obey most laws most of the time. That willingness to obey the law depends on the rule of law, and on reasonable use of discretion. People expect the police, and prosecutors, to be reasonable. It’s part of the social contract between government and the public, whose power is on loan to the government on condition of good, sane behavior.
If someone like Goodwyn had no notice he was prohibited from entering the Capitol—he didn’t–saw others entering, walked in a very short distance and immediately left when asked to leave, no reasonable police officer would arrest him—none did—and no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute him. There is no criminal intent, no harm, and prosecuting someone like that can only sunder the social contract for no public safety benefit.
So why are they prosecuting Goodwyn? It’s a political vendetta. He was easily identifiable—he’s on video all 35 seconds—and he was wearing a red MAGA hat, which to those persecuting him, is perhaps his most egregious crime—the slightest association with Donald Trump and Normal Americans.
We now move away from January 6, and into electoral politics, which were weaponized and politicized long before that day, institutionalizing the totalitarian impulses the FBI and DOJ are riding in their Javert-like pursuit of any and everyone who so much as rode a bus to Washington on January 6.
Few Americans would argue with any law, even a 100-year-old law, targeting the Klu Klux Klan, unless such a law was used for a purpose never intended: depriving Americans of their First Amendment free speech rights. That’s exactly the case with Doug Mackey, who, during the 2016 election, posted a satirical meme—a tweet–about Hillary Clinton. It’s a miracle Mackey hasn’t committed “suicide,” which is the common fate of those daring to anger the wine-soaked former First Lady. We’ll turn to The Gateway Pundit for more:
In the run up to the 2016 election, Mackey posted a satirical meme telling Clinton voters that they could vote for Clinton by texting ‘Hillary’ to a certain phone number. This is absurd to think it would be taken seriously considering there has never been any discussion about ‘voting by phone’ in the 2016 election run up. And using whatever device one would view Mackey’s tweet through could easily be used to affirm that there is no such thing as ‘vote by phone.’ But an over-zealous DOJ took up the case five years later in 2021, days after Biden occupied the White House, and now Mackey is facing up to ten years in prison. The original tweet as it was posted:
Mackey, at the time in 2016, had more influence on Twitter than CNN, NBC, and the Colbert Report, according to a substack article by Paulos. This deduction by Paulos likely came from the criminal complaint in which the Eastern District of New York cited an MIT Media Lab report that ranked Mackey’s account as the ‘107th most important influencer of the then-upcoming Election, ranking it above more widely known outlets and individuals such as NBC News (#114), Stephen Colbert (#119) and Newt Gingrich (#141).’ The report also states that Mackey had just over 58,000 followers at that time. That number is relevant because a similar post was made by Kristina Wong, currently with 27.4k followers, telling voters that she is ‘coming out…I’m a Trump supporter’ and reminding her ‘fellow Chinese Americans for Trump and people of color for Trump to vote! Vote for Trump on Wednesday, November 9th.’ Obviously, that election was held on November 8th, 2016, the day Wong made the tweet.
Wong, of course, is not being prosecuted, because she was satirizing a Republican. The law under which Mackey is being prosecuted is 18 USC 241. It has never been used to prosecute free speech, until Hillary Clinton was involved. The law:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
The anti-Klan nature and intent of the law is obvious. So how did Mackey violate this law? All he did was publish a meme any reasonable person must have known to be absurd. There must surely be some–half-ish of America is below average in intelligence–but what Normal American thinks one can vote by phone or text? There is no known instance of anyone falling for the meme, and as a result, failing to vote or being denied an opportunity to vote. Who is the victim?
The government’s ploy is arguing Mackey’s meme interfered with the 2016 election, which Clinton famously lost. And who is the other—or others—of the “two or more persons?” Why, they’re people who saw Mackey’s meme online, who participated in a group chat! Revolver News reports:
Back in October, ‘stochastic terrorism’ was just a concept for the media, the blogosphere, and the Twitterati, and it was only a weapon for curbing speech.
But everything moves faster in the digital age. Just five months later, the Biden Department of Justice is using the logic of ‘stochastic terrorism’ to justify stripping core constitutional due process rights from dissident American voices.
In its latest filings, the DOJ reveals that one of the group chats it is currently using as evidence against Mackey contained a person who is now working with the FBI as a federal informant. According to the government, the ‘Confidential Witness’ (or CW) was a pro-Trump, ‘alt right’ leader who pleaded guilty to the same conspiracy to deprive civil rights charges that Mackey faces, and is now collaborating with the government.
In its filings, the government declines to say what CW’s current role with the government is, except that he is ‘presently engaged in proactive investigations, working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’), and may engage in additional investigations in the future.’ Based on that statement, the government is asking that CW’s identity be kept secret, and that Mackey’s defense team be barred from asking any questions about CW’s current work.
Is any of that true, or is the government using those allegations to deny Mackey a fair trial? That too is something that can no longer be automatically discounted. And how did this CW and Mackey “conspire” by merely engaging in the same online chat? Doesn’t conspiracy require some sort of intent and affirmative action to further the conspiracy? Did the CW and Mackey actually know each other, speak with each other beyond the online chat? Believe it or not, the Judge is allowing this concealment of the witness and denial of Mackey’s 6th Amendment right to confront her, because the government alleges if CW’s identity be known, she—that much is known–might face Internet harassment! That’s right, people on the Internet might be mean to her. This kind of extraordinary measure is normally confined only to witnesses whose lives are genuinely in danger, such as people testifying against gangs. The problem here, beyond denial of due process and simple fairness, is the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense [emphasis mine].
According to Tucker Carlson on 03-14-23, the primary witness against Mackey is an FBI informant, who was obviously turned by the government. The government claims her identity cannot be revealed, Mackey’s counsel cannot use her name in court, and she will not appear in court.
If Carlson is right, and it surely appears he is, this is a clear violation of the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses. On that basis alone, the case should be dismissed. But it’s worse.
Again, according to Carlson, the Southern Poverty Law Center actually intimidated Mackey’s expert witness—go here for details–such that he withdrew from the case, which is why the judge has granted a continuance so another expert witness can be found. At the very least, whichever leftist thugs at the SPLC did that should be prosecuted, and if they colluded with the prosecution—can anyone discount that possibility these days?—the prosecutors must be sanctioned, and in concert with 6th Amendment violations, the case dismissed with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct. That will, surely, not happen, and this DOJ, which would not prosecute intimidation of federal judges, surely will not prosecute this plain case of witness intimidation. More from The Gateway Pundit:
Revolver News’s Darren Beatie told Steve Bannon last month that the government hasn’t been able to produce a ‘single aggrieved party that didn’t vote as a result of this satirical meme.’ The Federal Government is now apparently pursuing a criminal charge against a man for a Tweet in which not one single case of an injured party can be presented.
It gets worse:
The Eastern District of New York went as far as attempting to require the panel of jurors all be vaccinated. This, of course, is a vastly political position in this country at the moment and would have undoubtedly swayed the jury in favor of the prosecution. This order, however, was not adopted.
At least one member of Congress, Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Green, has taken the part of the Constitution, as the Post Millennial reports:
There is no evidence that Mr. Mackey’s meme posting prevented anyone from voting in the 2016 US Presidential Election and there are no individuals claiming that it did. This case is simply the DOJ on behalf of its puppeteers in the White House versus Douglas McKay AKA @theRickyVaughn. This flagrant assault on free speech and political participation is utterly un-American undemocratic and incredibly dangerous.
Yes it is.
Greene then called on Garland to order the DOJ to drop its charges against Douglas Mackey and ‘to immediately thereafter resign as Attorney General of the United States before your gross incompetence and twisted sense of justice further deteriorates the rights enumerated in and protected by the Constitution and destroys the lives of more Americans.’
Final Thoughts: that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich is an old aphorism, but it applies no less to federal prosecutors. Federal law is often written loosely, and if not, federal prosecutors on a political vendetta can warp it to apply to anything, like a man who had no criminal intent, committed no crime, and instantly obeyed the request of a police officer, even constitutionally protected speech. Due to their unlimited resources, federal prosecutors tend to pile up enormous win records, because few are sufficiently wealthy to fight them, and federal judges tend to let them get away with it. Most people, and this is the case with J6 defendants, will take a plea deal, because they know it’s virtually impossible for a Normal American to get a fair trial in Washington DC.
It’s cases like these that utterly destroy citizen’s trust in government, and particularly in law enforcement. Professional police officers worry about that and do their best never to break the social contract. Socialist/Communist politicians, and this now includes the DOJ—federal prosecutors–the FBI and virtually every other federal law enforcement agency, don’t give a damn about that, because they intend to rule by force, not the rule of law.
The law is what they say it is, and to hell with the Constitution.
Regarding Goodwyn… this is the official DOJ context…
Regarding Mackey, again some DOJ context….
I trust these sources for their “accuracy” of the charges being presented against these two defendants. I most certainly do not trust a damn thing from FOX whore Carlson, or your other “objective” sources you cited, to provide real context. Certainly you can cite all those sources if you want to just appeal to separating Americans based on emotional outrage that comprises the usual grievance politics of us vs them.
Goodwyn was at the time a member of the Proud Boys which seems to me rather moots his defense of his “simply walking though an open door and not knowing he was trespassing”. But.. he will have his day in court to prove his innocense.
Mackey… well, he will have his day in court as well, albeit I’d be a tad interested how the government draws the line between free speech and the crime of disinformation. I’m guessing this is all about his original intent…. satire/sarcasm or a real attempt to disinform the process. Being a member of the Proud Boys casts a shadow on the idea that his meme was just simply sarcasm.
You never know.. these guys might get assigned a Trump-appointed judge who thinks he owns Trump a favor. Although, a fair number of Trump appointees to the bench seem to actually be trying to be impartial.
Mike McDaniel said:
As I constantly note, in such matters, we’re dealing almost exclusively with media sources. I’ve read the government’s accusations, but one must always remember such documents portray defendants as the next Charles Manson. They usually, at the very least, leave a great deal of exculpatory evidence out, and sometimes, outright lie. And these days, one can count on the media to hide facts favorable to Normal American defendants, and fully, and unquestionably parrot whatever the government says.
Regarding Goodwyn, his past associations mean nothing in this case. The video tells the tale, and the source you cited confirms what I’ve written, though it doesn’t say it, it confirms he was only in the Capital for seconds, and committed no crime other than being there for 35 seconds. I would never have written such a lame affidavit.
Regarding Mackey, even if he thought he might trick some people, that’s still free speech. There is no right not to make a fool of oneself, nor is there a federal law preventing it, which is why the government is trying to warp the Klan act into an election law in this case. And again, whatever associations he may or may not have had in the past–or present–have no bearing on this case.
I’ll trust the DOJ when it shows itself worthy of trust. You’ve been paying attention, haven’t you?
The problem, as always, is it shouldn’t matter who appointed a judge. All should obey the law and the Constitution.
My entire point here, Mike, is you are justifying your grievance simply from presenting the emotional of what you personally feel is just. Nothing “wrong” with that; that’s what blogging is all about. But your sources are just reflecting always the same old MAGA lament of how wrong people are who do not agree with MAGA Conservatism.
“I’ll trust the DOJ when it shows itself worthy of trust. You’ve been paying attention, haven’t you?”
So.. you trust Tucker Carlson, Hannity, et al… Twitter, Post Millennial, The Gateway Pundit, etc, over the DOJ? Actually, that’s apples and oranges. Your sources, as with most any sources, are opinionated commentaries on policies of the DOJ and as such are subject to opinion. In the end a court decides… Tucker doesn’t.
“The problem, as always, is it shouldn’t matter who appointed a judge. All should obey the law and the Constitution.”
We agree, but we both know MAGA people were cheering over the hundreds of Conservative judgeships Trump appointed. Why would they be cheering if they were all supposed to be objective and non-biased? Why did Roe v. Wade get repealed after a half century of practical and formal review along the way? Objective application of law by the Trump nominees? Uh-huh. Dems also do it, so the “problem” is one of diversity of personal morality.
“Regarding Goodwyn, his past associations mean nothing in this case.”
Uh… past associations?
“The video tells the tale.”
You mean the video Tucker showed you (out of those 40,000 hours) and his explanation for what you are seeing, tells the tale?
Again…. I already know that I may not know enough about any of these cases to formulate a fully knowledgeable conclusion to predict a jury vote. Which also means, neither do you or anyone else, including Tucker, unless they/you were in the loop… and if that were the case then you are likely sworn to confidentiality.
Mike McDaniel said:
I’ll put this as simply as I can: The documents you cited do not, in fact, prove the elements of the crimes alleged. That’s what matters, not that, as the anonymous FBI agents alleges, the defendant is an icky person, so they must be guilty.
You make appeals to authority, but that’s not evidence, nor is that adherence to the law or the Constitution.
So very well. This coming week I’ll use the sources you cite, and explain why their allegations do not support charges, let alone prosecution. Not opinion, not bias, not supposition, but analysis based on decades of actual experience. By the way, did you notice those sources do not identify any victims?
I never once stated that the docs I cited defined guilt. It’s alleged evidence…. for a jury/court to determine guilt. The fact you don’t like their evidence is limited only to your opinion. As to the Constitution… that’s also up to juris prudence as the evidence points.
As for your non-biased analysis from decades of experience… as a cop… would be interesting if not laced with biased not-too-well veiled assignment of conspiracy and blame of political ideology. Just the facts, ma’am.
“By the way, did you notice those sources do not identify any victims?”
I am unaware that all laws require a victim. You mean the kind of victim that gets created when you get pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign at 3am?
Mike McDaniel said:
When you feel you have to resort to implied insults, you’ve already lost.
Drawing on two of the earlier replies:-
On the first part:-
– No, being a member of something or other never, ever “moots [a] defense”, unless what is being charged is being a member. So you could charge (say) Hitler with being a member of the Nazi Party, if he were still around, as it has been banned. But you cannot – or at any rate, should not – bar even the worst Nazi from defending himself against something else, say trespass, because Nazi!
– And, no, neither he nor anyone else should ever have to prove their innocence of anything. The moment you move the goal posts there, it’s game over for all of us, because it’s up hill all the way for anyone accused of anything, ever. The burden of proof is for the prosecution to show guilt, and not to bar defence, let alone require it to prove innocence. Look into your soul, and make sure you aren’t thinking that the guilty don’t deserve protection so it’s OK. That’s the kind of thinking that gets people killed by fooling with guns that they were sure weren’t loaded, so sure that they never checked. These protections aren’t for the guilty, any more than making sure a gun isn’t loaded is for guns that really aren’t loaded. It’s for the times we are wrong – or, worse, unjustly persecuted.
On the second part, have you considered that people might cheer because they were hoping to get objective and non-biased, instead of the usual? I mean, you aren’t using woke and/or left wing approved as a test, maybe even a definition, of objective and non-biased, are you?
To your first “no” point…. as I am aware, there’s evidence the Proud Boys had some planning prior to Jan. 6. If Goodwyn was a member at the time then it rather offsets any defense he might have that he was there as a simple tourist meandering around and ignoring events unfolding around him. One burden on the prosecution might be to establish how and why he was there in the fist place and was it because he was a member of the Proud Boys… who we already seem to know they had a mission that day. To your charge that he is unable to defend himself… I have no idea what that’s all about.
To your second “non” point… I really have no idea what you are talking about. There seems to have been evidence enough to charge him for something, and the court will determine his innocense or guilt. If you don’t want to assign any value to the evidence that’s certainly an opinion. If you want to call the DOJ corrupt, that’s an opinion, of course. McCarthy can arrange another investigative vengeance committee for Jordan or Greene.
To your final point regarding the “cheering” for Trump-appointed judgeships, my final remark in that paragraph admitted…
“Dems also do it, so the “problem” is one of diversity of personal morality.”
Impartial objectivity is aspirational with us humans, but because we are human, is a struggle and never a guarantee. So it turns into nothing more than an ongoing shifting of a balance of power.
Mike McDaniel said:
What you said.
Ken H said:
“Well, point of order here….
Mueller said that while his team saw the term “collusion” pop up frequently in official Trump administration memorandums—either by the president himself and in public reports—”
What public reports? The fake document that the Democrats paid for that Mueller had no interest in following up on? 34 indictments…so what? No one was found guilty of a crime.
As expected Doug, you can’t provide any proof of a crime. Just like always. If there was evidence of a crime we would all know about it and would have know years ago.
The only crime I see is that you wasted 12 years in school and left unable to apply logic or reason.
“The fake document that the Democrats paid for that Mueller had no interest in following up on?”
What is even that all about? Let’s presume for a moment this means something… do we have evidence the Dems paid for such a document… and do we have proof Mueller ‘had no interest’ in following up on it? In fact, generally because there is context to everything, what was the context of Mueller allegedly having no interest in said document?
“34 indictments…so what? No one was found guilty of a crime.”
Well.. yeah.. there were many. Trump also pardoned a number of ’em as well. Where do you get this stuff?
As expected Doug, you can’t provide any proof of a crime.
Well, golly… you’re correct, I can’t provide any proof of a crime. If I were that good we could just skip over democracy and make me a King. I speculate and opinionate.. like you do…. because that’s all we can do. You have absolute proof of anything at all.. anywhere? Or do you just absorb what the FOX people toss your way?
If there was evidence of a crime we would all know about it and would have know years ago.
The only crime I see is that you wasted 12 years in school and left unable to apply logic or reason.
You know, that’s probably the only thing you’ve stated in here today that makes any opinionated sense. (actually a little more than 12 years… but I won’t quibble.)
Ken H said:
” do we have evidence the Dems paid for such a document”
Yes, look it up. It’s been public knowledge for a long time.
“…and do we have proof Mueller ‘had no interest’ in following up on it?”
Hillary Clinton publicly accused Trump of Russian collusion on several occasions. The first time was the day after she lost the election. Mueller determined that there was no collusion but he couldn’t be bothered to investigate the fake document (paid for by the Democrats) that initiated his entire enquiry.
Are you really that gullible?
Well, given I had no idea what the hell document… wait a sec.. I had to struggle a bit with my questionable education. He was talking about the Mueller report? I think our tax dollars paid for that.. not the Dems. No wonder I was confused.
Let’s try this… if Trump MAGA people have all this “evidence” of hanky-panky… and they’ve had Trump’s four years in office, and now a House majority.. and no one seems to give a tinker’s damn to take it all to court.. from either side… then it seems consigned to history. Yet all this is important to you guys? I’m all for pursuing justice but no one seems to care except MAGA debaters.
Ken H said:
Now Doug is confused. Or pretending to be confused. Or maybe he can’t keep his lies straight. It’s actually very simple:
The document that launched the Mueller report was falsified and paid for by the Democrat party. After 3 years and 10’s of million in tax money Mueller determined that the Russian collusion claim was completely false. No one has ever been held accountable for falsifying evidence in order to try to remove a sitting president from office.
The Steele dossier that FOX pushed? If you want to believe that, sure, fine. Doesn’t change much of anything. Take it to court.
Ken H said:
“The Steele dossier that FOX pushed? If you want to believe that, sure, fine. Doesn’t change much of anything. Take it to court.”
Doug, are you now claiming that the Mueller investigation was launched because Fox news made it happen?
Stop being a troll.
Not in the least. As I recall (and pieced together from Wiki) it was Australian people who informed American people in 2016, that Trump presidential campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, told the Australian High Commissioner to Britain, Alexander Downer, that Russian officials were in possession of politically damaging information relating to Hillary Clinton. The FBI responded with their own investigation between Trump associates and Russian officials. Hence the meeting between Papadopoulos and Downer is considered to be the trigger that led to the Mueller investigation. Nothing to do with Steele’s dossier. But I am sure whatever FOX says it the “truth”.
A troll? If you mean I have an alternate opinion to most of the stuff posted in here, you are correct. I am a registered Indy (a traditional GOP ex-pat).. so feel free to convince me one way or the other.
Mike McDaniel said:
Fox pushed the Steele Dossier? Fox?! Golly, I thought it was Hillary, the DNC, and D/S/Cs in general, including, of course, the media other than Fox. Apparently I can’t believe my own lyin’ eyes and ears.
Yes, FOX. I dunno.. here’s a sample…
Ken H said:
“Yes, FOX. I dunno.. here’s a sample…”
Fox was right. Hillary and the Democrat party were fined for paying for and spreading fake information about Trump and Russia in an attempt to force a sitting president out of office. That’s what I said all along. Both of them paid fines:
“The Federal Election Commission has fined both Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee for lying about how they spent money used to fund the now-debunked Steele dossier on former President Donald Trump.”
They got off easy, a small fine instead of extended jail time for treason. By the way, the same people that believed the fake Steel dossier also sit on the J6 committee.
Yep…. and the same people who (still) believe the Trumpian lie that the election was a fraud now sit on various House committees. Your point?
Let me help you with that… that there’s gullible people on both sides who will believe in anything to satisfy their conformational bias?
If 2024 is another 2020, God help us all.
I might prefer that if God opts to “helping us” at all that it’s regarding how we work together rather than helping one side or the other win an election. That being said, I was among the millions of Americans who uttered just those words when Trump unexpectedly won. Sadly, all my apprehensions came true.
You know, the Wehrmacht of WW2 wore belt buckles that had the words… “Gott mit Uns”, “God is with us.” Invoking God seems a universal prayer.
Ken H said:
“I might prefer that if God opts to “helping us” at all that it’s regarding how we work together rather than helping one side or the other win an election. That being said, I was among the millions of Americans who uttered just those words when Trump unexpectedly won. Sadly, all my apprehensions came true.”
Yeah, stable energy prices, no new wars, solid economy, a couple peace deals in the Middle East, low inflation. I can see how some people find that a threat.
But please enlighten us Doug. What bad things happened under Trump that scared you?
Facts only please.
You mean, besides his attempt to interfere in the 202 election and inciting Jan. 6?
His bully and abusive persona and widely understood behavioral deficiencies. But I know you will accept all that with the retort, “Maybe he did all that, but look at all the good he did for the country.” So, ok.. let’s remove his personal propensity to lie and abuse his bully pulpit. (as if that wasn’t enough)… specifically with his DOJ and obstructing the Mueller investigation… and appointing family and other incompetents into critical positions… and loyalty oaths… firing whistleblowers… and profiting from his office. His administrative buffoonery has fractured our institutions, not to mention promoted doubt among Americans in the government. Admittedly this was all festering under the surface for decades before Trump.. but he brought it to fruition.
But you want to know what he did that was so bad so we can argue the tit-for-tat thing. I’ll concede everything you think he did that was good, was in fact bad for matters of different ideology.
He rejected the Iran deal… which his MAGA supporters thought was just favoring Iran… pallets of bucks going this way and that way… and it wasn’t. It was actually working, and his idiocy resulted in the current collapse of the Mid East in Syria, having emboldened Russia and Iran.
He got himself impeached… twice. Yeah, I know.. that doesn’t count.
He completely botched the response to the Covid pandemic in his bullying and accusations of institutions and professional people working for solutions. Sure.. the “cure” was under his watch… but what good is that when his minions are all screaming the vaccines were a ruse and yet another conspiracy theory for government control.
His idiotic comments about Charlottesville just fed the far right violence.. especially when elements of the far right supported his efforts.
His border “policy” was to separate kids from their parents.. many died in the process.
His tax relief policy just made the rich folks richer.
This goes on and on. But to me, his persona and behaviors were not one bit worth whatever he managed to accomplish that you would call “good for the country”. But.. that’s just me. He was not re-elected for a reason.
Ken H said:
” I’d be a tad interested how the government draws the line between free speech and the crime of disinformation.”
Please remind us, how did that trial turn out for the people who openly promoted Russian collusion so much that it interfered in a federal election?
Actually as I recall, Mueller’s report implied such collusion, but as we all know he failed to carry anything further.. and of course AG Barr, in his totally un-biased letter, declared there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute Herr Trump, in spite of the fact, again as I recall, there was something like 34 people indicted for some level of collusion. For some reason, the Trump administration failed to carry out their own investigation, even to the extent of investigating the investigators for many things from traitorous acts to interfering with the election that Trump won. In fact, now that the MAGA GOP has control of the House there’s apparently no interest to pursue any guilt of those collusion investigation “culprits” even on their list of vengeance committees. So.. you tell me.
Ken H said:
No Doug. The report said there was no collusion. That’s why CNN, MSNBC, and all the other media went completely silent on the issue after the report came out. Had they reported that there was no collusion they would have had to tell everyone that they were wrong.
Interestingly, the one thing the investigation never even looked at was the source of the original claim. 3 years and 10’s of millions to investigate a fake claim and they had no interest in whether or not the source of that claim was even legitimate.
Well, point of order here….
Mueller said that while his team saw the term “collusion” pop up frequently in official Trump administration memorandums—either by the president himself and in public reports—
“collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute. For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term ‘collusion.”
FYI.. the investigation resulted in 34 American indictments and 3 Russian nationals… along with Mueller referring to other DOJ departments 14 others for further review. Was it worth all the millions spent on it? Depends who you hate.
Pingback: Capital Coverup 15.2: The Goodwyn Case | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Capital Coverup 15.3: Every American Should Be Outraged | Stately McDaniel Manor