this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
219 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is intentional - they're trying to lay the groundwork for Trump's Jan6 indictment defense: He was simply taking the advice of his lawyer in good faith that he believed he had actually won the election.
What they don't realize is that this is a trap by Jack Smith - because that enables the prosecutors to look into Trumps communications with his lawyers - https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/jack-smith-has-set-a-trap-for-trump?sd=pf
Even aside from that, they wont be able to argue that he believed it in good faith when they've got TONS of advisers refuting that, even instances of contemporaneous public refutations from people within Trump's circle.
We thought we'd already seen Stupid Watergate, and it just keeps getting stupider...
Doesn't this quote from the article make it seem like Trump was making his own decision:
" ... claimed that Trump himself read a series of academic law review articles about the Electoral Count Act to brush up on the relevant law."
Yeah it does. But I find that claim extremely hard to believe.