Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducbutter
Dore and Greenwald are both about as left as they come. Unlike most democrats in the US, they're honest.
|
That's a good defense by Greenwald. I got to the middle of the video before I quit viewing because he and Dore were trying to tie all the world's ills to some kind of capitalist conspiracy. They even applied it to the leftist Brazilian leader, Lula. That was a big let down for me, because I thought Lula was corrupt, and Greenwald persuaded me he wasn't. Now through some flight of fantasy he's retracted that and made Lula an enemy of the people.
I read the indictment in its entirety and believe Team Trump has a tough row to hoe. The best defenses of the ex President I've heard or read come from his lawyer, John Lauro, and the Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Kimberley Strassel. Lauro's arguments revolve around Trump's claims and actions being "aspirational." His lawyers were throwing out different theories and he was following along. Strassel's are that other people have done the same or similar things and not been prosecuted. Alternate slates of electors for particular states have been submitted in previous elections. Obama ignored the constitution and the law when he made appointments to federal boards when the Senate was out of session. Biden did when he cancelled student debt.
I believe their (Greenwald, Lauro, Strassel) defenses aren't so strong with respect to two issues. The first, when Trump and his attorneys were pushing people at the state level to find votes and appoint alternate sets of electors, did they step over the line? Recall Trump's conversation with Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger for example, where he pushed the Secretary on tape to "find" 11,000 votes," and said he would be breaking the law if he didn't do so.
The second issue is the pressure that Trump and the attorneys put on Pence to outright reject slates of electors from certain states, use Trump's fraudulently appointed electors, and declare Trump the winner.
Reading the indictment, Giuliani, Eastman and Clark look just as culpable, maybe more, than Trump. Why weren't they indicted? Professional courtesy to the lawyer class? If Trump had never had anything to do with Giuliani, he'd have a much stronger legacy. He wouldn't have been impeached twice.