The app for independent voices

Dannie D's avatar

Mexico has officially banned the Trump propaganda from airing on Mexican TV and social media. No racist ads, and no lies disguised as messages to the world.

Jasmine Crockett's avatar

We live in a time that people are more inclined to obey an unlawful executive order than they are to follow a court order 🤦🏾‍♀️.

Dictators are created due to cruelty, cowardice, & compliance! IF THEIR ASSES will ignore the Supreme Court, we can definitely IGNORE HIM!

Adam Kinzinger's avatar

I’m going to say something that shouldn’t be controversial but will be. If you are a Christian, you can support border control and immigration being legal vs illegal. You CANNOT celebrate deportations and get off on the cruelty, and be a real Christ follower. Period

You made it, you own it

You always own your intellectual property, mailing list, and subscriber payments. With full editorial control and no gatekeepers, you can do the work you most believe in.

Joe C.'s avatar
Why Mill Valley murder suspect will not face the death penalty. Will Amazon pull back on data centers like Microsoft? And Scotts CEO hit the national airwaves last week
Pete Buttigieg's avatar

Of course advance information on US combat operations is classified. Pretending otherwise is an insult to our troops, who all know this.

The Secretary is unfit to lead.

Great discussions

Join the most interesting and insightful discussions.

daisy.'s avatar

only been on substack for a day and it already feels like this.

Peter Nayland Kust's avatar
Smith Indicts Trump For Doubting The Deep State
William Wade's avatar

If the administration is stupid enough to let this go to trial, seems like the judge will be hard-pressed to come up with a legal justification to bar the defense from entering into evidence ALL of the documentation they’ve accumulated regarding 2020 election shenanigans, simply to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump had good reason to believe what he said.

I believe that to date, no federal court has permitted any of the many 2020 election cases to reach that point.

This has the potential to blow up rather spectacularly.

Peter Nayland Kust's avatar

That does appear to be a rather serious tactical blunder on Smith's part.

Both legally and politically, the entire theory of Smith's case hinges on what Trump did or did not believe to be true about the 2020 election. In the indictment, the only proffers of evidence to what Trump "knew" are the assurances from various government officials that there was no election fraud.

However, in virtually every state Trump sought to submit alternate slates of electors vis-a-vis 1876, election irregularities …

William Wade's avatar

The disaster Jack Smith is facing is bigger than whether or not Trump’s defense team can beat the charges. The bigger issue for the Democrats is the entry of testimony into evidence in federal court regarding the 2020 election irregularities - an event that they have thus far been able to successfully prevent. By forcing the court to take judicial notice of that evidence, it will enter the record, and thus be accessible in a variety of related cases as having been accepted as fact. The only way…

William Wade's avatar

Given the charges, there seems little opportunity for the prosecution to block the introduction of any and all evidence of election skullduggery in the possession of the defense, since that would speak directly to whether Trump had reason to believe his statements regarding election fraud were true. If Smith fails to refute the truth of that evidence, it becomes part of the judicial records of facts, regardless of the outcome. The Democrats have spent the last two years making certain that didn…

William Wade's avatar

As I said - barring some chicanery by which the prosecution prevents the introduction of evidence that speaks directly one of the charges in the indictment, or as Peter suggests, direct evidence in the prosecution’s hands that very directly confirms that charge, any competent defense team will want to introduce everything they have regarding the 2020 election. At that point, unless Smith can refute every assertion placed into evidence, which seems unlikely, it doesn’t matter whether Trump wins …

Peter Nayland Kust's avatar

Ultimately, corporate media is going to shill most of all for corporate media.

That means that, in every story, if it bleeds, it leads.

If the corporate media can drive ratings by dogpiling on Trump they are going to dogpile on Trump. If they can drive more ratings by switching to Biden they are going to dogpile on Biden.

And they’ve already cooled toward the Biden administration. Like it or not, they are being forced to address stories they were doing their best to bury in 2020, including the Vp’s unpopularity, Hunter Biden’s influence peddling, and now the origin of COVID-19. Suppression of stories regarding 2020 election irregularities is their last bastion. If they lose on that, they’ll be in full retreat.

1 Like
Aug 3, 2023
at
9:56 PM