Stormy kills Bragg case

[Dill]

(05-09-2024, 08:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: And I've said before that I had a different perspective on that because my ol' man did what his country asked him to and when he got back as soon as he let his hair grow to an "unacceptable length" the old country-lovin' patriots "knew" that he was an America-hating commie who ran and hid when his draft number came up.

That accords with my memory of the period. 

Vietnam Vets were often the vanguard of war protests, and it was the government, Pentagon, Johnson, and Nixon that the protestors attacked, not soldiers.
There are accounts of "patriots" spitting on war protestors. If the protestors were also veterans, well, that would make sense.

That history was revised in the late '80s and early '90s as the belief that deplaning vets were frequently spit upon and otherwise abused became a wide-spread about the time of the Gulf war, just in time to vilify protestors of that war. Message: "During war, patriots trust their leaders, not the protestors!"

It used to take a decade or more to turn history upside down; now it takes less than a year, sometimes only a month.

The current Trump trial is a case in point--how did it go from being a prosecution squelched/delayed by Trump's protective DOJ to one whose "timing" is suspicious?

Same way, I guess that Biden's "weaponization" of the DOJ became a thing less than a year after Trump tried to use his to overturn an election. 

False equivalence always seems to be the hinge which swings public attention from fact-based prosecutions of Trump to accusation-based mirror-charges of Biden, his DOJ, Dems in general. Gore contested an election too!! Why didn't the FBI raid Biden's house to collect documents? How can Garland get away with defying a Congressional subpoena?!  Dems can't get over the Capitol riots, but the Floyd protests did much more property damage!  Only right that Biden be impeached for something, anything, if Trump was--but we have a two-tiered justice system! Biden has become a threat to democracy!

[Stewy]

(05-11-2024, 05:30 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Another rabid falsehood, proven by nothing you ferociously typed afterwards.


There is a classification for this condition, and are great example of why I will spend little time responding to the "scientist."

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[*pally*]

Women do not like other women being “slut shamed” even if in the eyes of some they deserve it. Men’s sexual history is almost never brought up in court as a sign of their morality. The Trump’s lawyer’ cross examination sought to do exactly that which was risky because of 5 women on the jury. It didn’t matter how many people she slept with or what she did for a living, she doesn’t relinquish body autonomy because of it.

For all of Fox’s reporting, Stormy, especially after the 2nd day of cross, came off quite credible. I think the jury does believe the sex between her and Trump took place. She said she hated Trump…if she hadn’t said that, she would’ve been lying. She was honest.

And regardless of her goals, it is Trump’s actions that are on trial not hers. If she was blackmailing him, he should have reported it to the police, he didn’t. He paid her off, to save his campaign. He used corporate, not personal, funds to do so and claimed it was legal expenses. That is a violation of New York State law.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-11-2024, 02:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I preemted the answer to that, sure I can see that. At some point though, I feel it is important to divide the looks from the essence of things; and to remember that no matter the circumstances, it does not make Trump less guilty of anything either. That is where imho folks take it too far, when they seem to conclude that because it's all so suspicious and the optics so bad, Trump must be an innocent man. And he is not. I don't care about Stormy, don't know about the finance issues, but there is him as sitting president losing an election and then calling a state secretary asking him to find him the votes he needs to win, and threatening him if not complying. And that is on tape and that still, in my view, has to be a serious crime treated - meaning investigated and tried - as such. The most heineous attacks on Trump can not wash him free from that (and some other things, eg. stealing and lying about classified docs, slandering people and all the things he does).


Yeah I have to say, I always find that comparison of Trump with Stacey Abrams to be quite inept. No judgment on it here, but she addressed systemic disadvantages (Hillary claimed Russian meddling). Trump claimed there's a huge conspiracy within the election system to overturn the rightful results, an enormous crime and treason against the people playing out on a massive scale, massive enough to warrant a repeal of the constitution. That are very different things, imho.


I understand. As I usually annoyingly say at this point, you need a massive overhaul of your voting system. Two parties, electors, winner takes all districts, that apparently does you no good. Sadly most americans seem content to pick a side and then shape a whole construct of selective logic around that desicion.

I agree there are things DJT is likely guilty of, but the manner in which he is being prosecuted makes it easy for him to gain sympathy. He has enough PT Barnum in him to direct the crowd where to look so they see the biggest flaws in the cases, and avoid the clearest evidence against him. I would argue the White House has never had a greater showman, whether one believes he is peddling a cure all, or snake oil.

You are correct that the more serious charges, such as finding votes, should be front and center and would be a much better look for the left, instead of prosecuting his for everything imaginable. It delegitimizes the the more viable charges in the eyes of the public., and strengthens his "witch hunt" narrative.

I agree the Abrams is a weak one, it was just the most recent and acclaimed one I could think of. That said, I believe there is meddling of some sort in all elections, it is just a matter of degree. Large companies throw their clout behind candidates they favor, as do all other sorts of special interest groups. It is a very flawed system and could use an overhaul.

Ranked choice voting would be a nice first step, as it would allow for third party candidates to get on the stage and for people to vote for them without feeling they are throwing their votes away for not voting R or D.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

[Belsnickel]

(05-12-2024, 09:19 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Ranked choice voting would be a nice first step, as it would allow for third party candidates to get on the stage and for people to vote for them without feeling they are throwing their votes away for not voting R or D.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

Another big help to allow the emergence of more parties and greater representation would be to increase the number of members in the House and tie it to population (the number has remained the same for over a century while the population has increased three-fold). We should make the most in any one House district is the population of the least populous state. We should also reduce the number of districts and have each one represented by the top three or four vote getters. This would allow for the emergence of additional parties based on Duverger's Law.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-12-2024, 09:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Another big help to allow the emergence of more parties and greater representation would be to increase the number of members in the House and tie it to population (the number has remained the same for over a century while the population has increased three-fold). We should make the most in any one House district is the population of the least populous state. We should also reduce the number of districts and have each one represented by the top three or four vote getters. This would allow for the emergence of additional parties based on Duverger's Law.

You are not wrong in sentiment, and pose good ideas and I had to look up Duverger's Law. Always a good thing to be better educated. Prefer the idea of top four, since added choices for the populace is a good thing. Just because you're voting for the R or D doesn't mean it is the R or D who best fits your belief system.

I wish there was a way to cap campaign financing in a way where it leveled the playing field and limited the impact of outside interest groups, whether it is foreign, cooperate, pharma, etc... but that is too pie in the sky with all the dark money out there.

Plus when the two party system is in charge, why would they risk letting anyone else belly up to the trough?

What do you think it would take to instigate real change?  The only thing I could think of would be some sort of major catastrophe that puts everyone on the same side.

idk

[Belsnickel]

(05-12-2024, 10:06 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: You are not wrong in sentiment, and pose good ideas and I had to look up Duverger's Law. Always a good thing to be better educated. Prefer the idea of top four, since added choices for the populace is a good thing. Just because you're voting for the R or D doesn't mean it is the R or D who best fits your belief system.

I wish there was a way to cap campaign financing in a way where it leveled the playing field and limited the impact of outside interest groups, whether it is foreign, cooperate, pharma, etc... but that is too pie in the sky with all the dark money out there.

Plus when the two party system is in charge, why would they risk letting anyone else belly up to the trough?

What do you think it would take to instigate real change?  The only thing I could think of would be some sort of major catastrophe that puts everyone on the same side.

idk

Unfortunately, there is enough legal precedence at this point for money being speech that capping all of that is very much pie-in-the-sky. The only options to really level it out like that would be untenable for too many stakeholders. Media companies would dislike it because of a reduction in ad buys. Campaigns would dislike it because they like money. Big money donors would dislike it because they couldn't put their thumbs on the scales as well. And the list could go on, but with those three alone we know it isn't happening.

Also, you're right about them not letting others in. Both of the major parties routinely make moves against allowing for third-party and independent candidates to gain any traction. It means they would lose some of their power and all our political parties care about is winning elections and holding power.

So, what would it take? A revolution. I am dead serious about this, as well. That's what it will take.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-11-2024, 01:54 PM)pally Wrote: Bullcrap... Trump played down the pandemic so that it wouldn't hurt his reelection chances.  He put cronies in charge of the pandemic economic response instead of people trained in logistics. He regularly discounted experts and publicized crackpots.  He failed to take the role of a world leader.  Every decision was made with his own personal interests in mind not the countries.

The depression wasn't Herbert Hoover's fault but he gets stuck with the blame.  Pearl Harbor wasn't FDR's fault but he gets stuck with the blame.  That's the joy of the Presidency...they get the credit for the good and the blame for the bad regardless of their actual role.  However, we can place blame on Trump's abysmal medical, political, and economic failures as a leader during the pandemic for much of what happened in 2020 and beyond

Bullcrap... Biden is playing down the immigration crisis so that it wouldn't hurt his reelection chances. He put cronies in charge of the immigration instead of people trained in logistics. He regularly discounted experts and publicized crackpots.  He failed to take the role of a world leader.  Every decision was made with his own personal interests in mind not the countries.

I guess the difference between the two is one actually went thru an event that wasn't in his control from the start, the other is a self-created crisis.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2024, 09:19 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree there are things DJT is likely guilty of, but the manner in which he is being prosecuted makes it easy for him to gain sympathy. He has enough PT Barnum in him to direct the crowd where to look so they see the biggest flaws in the cases, and avoid the clearest evidence against him. I would argue the White House has never had a greater showman, whether one believes he is peddling a cure all, or snake oil.

Yeah, it's just, emphazising this point just makes the other point rather moot. It does not make much difference how air-tight and fair these cases are then, Trump will still successfully narrate the opposite anyway.

(05-12-2024, 09:19 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: You are correct that the more serious charges, such as finding votes, should be front and center and would be a much better look for the left, instead of prosecuting his for everything imaginable. It delegitimizes the the more viable charges in the eyes of the public., and strengthens his "witch hunt" narrative.

Well, you make it sound as if the left (meaning some well-connected party elites) have master-minded all these charges and law suits, and I honestly believe that they did not, at least not to the extent as that they could actually steer the investigations however they pleased. Imho, if there was some more coordination, the Stormy case might not even have seen the light of day in the first place. Maybe the problems you mourn stem from that very issue, that there isn't all that much orchestration to begin with.

(05-12-2024, 09:19 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Ranked choice voting would be a nice first step, as it would allow for third party candidates to get on the stage and for people to vote for them without feeling they are throwing their votes away for not voting R or D.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

Well, on first glance that appears a bit obscure and too complicated. I can describe how my country does it, which is far from ideal from an actual results standpoint, but which seems the better way regardless. Imagine larger voting districts sending say five people per district to Congress instead of one. The threshold to gain a seat then would be 20% of votes... if your party makes over 40, fine, two seats from that district then, or even three four five. The "unused" votes, say your party got 25% and 5% are idle, then go to a national pool, filling additional seats. That way, it is guaranteed that your vote actually counts for the party you voted for, and new parties have a way easier path to emerge. You could for example have two conservative leaning parties and if Trump goes crazy one could just vote for the other one. That's why we do not have Trumps or Mr. Cannibals ate my uncle Man running for things.

And there sure are other ideas, but of course both your parties are strictly against it and why wouldn't they. They live in a system where they are pretty much guaranteed to be in power half of the time.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-12-2024, 12:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, you're right about them not letting others in. Both of the major parties routinely make moves against allowing for third-party and independent candidates to gain any traction. It means they would lose some of their power and all our political parties care about is winning elections and holding power.

So, what would it take? A revolution. I am dead serious about this, as well. That's what it will take.

Sadly, I agree, which would fall under a catastrophe in my book.


Until then, we will be pitted against one another.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-12-2024, 01:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, you make it sound as if the left (meaning some well-connected party elites) have master-minded all these charges and law suits, and I honestly believe that they did not, at least not to the extent as that they could actually steer the investigations however they pleased. Imho, if there was some more coordination, the Stormy case might not even have seen the light of day in the first place. Maybe the problems you mourn stem from that very issue, that there isn't all that much orchestration to begin with.

Well, on first glance that appears a bit obscure and too complicated. I can describe how my country does it, which is far from ideal from an actual results standpoint, but which seems the better way regardless. Imagine larger voting districts sending say five people per district to Congress instead of one. The threshold to gain a seat then would be 20% of votes... if your party makes over 40, fine, two seats from that district then, or even three four five. The "unused" votes, say your party got 25% and 5% are idle, then go to a national pool, filling additional seats. That way, it is guaranteed that your vote actually counts for the party you voted for, and new parties have a way easier path to emerge. You could for example have two conservative leaning parties and if Trump goes crazy one could just vote for the other one. That's why we do not have Trumps or Mr. Cannibals ate my uncle Man running for things.

And there sure are other ideas, but of course both your parties are strictly against it and why wouldn't they. They live in a system where they are pretty much guaranteed to be in power half of the time.

I think there is too large a coincidence all the charges were brought at once, with this timing, along with over charging and charge stacking for someone not to be orchestrating it. Please do not take this as me saying he is innocent of everything, because there is a lot of legal smoke that bear fair investigation and potentially charging.

I do admit maybe it is a slapstick clown show of charging, rather than some mastermind.  I suppose I am jaded enough to think the powers that be are always stacking the deck against the common mad. You do make fair points for consideration.

It seems your system accounts for smaller bites of the population having their say heard, versus larger lumps, which may help bring a third party into the discussion. Unfortunately,, as mentioned with mister Bels, it will take a massive upheaval here to bring any of that to fruition, and thus unlikely. But a fair argument for 2A on the longterm stage.

Where are you located? I have spent time in Wales and South Africa for rugby, and sadly had a poor experience with Wales socialized medical system, emergency situation, but likely (hopefully) not the standard!

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-12-2024, 02:21 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I think there is too large a coincidence all the charges were brought at once, with this timing, along with over charging and charge stacking for someone not to be orchestrating it. Please do not take this as me saying he is innocent of everything, because there is a lot of legal smoke that bear fair investigation and potentially charging.

I do admit maybe it is a slapstick clown show of charging, rather than some mastermind.  I suppose I am jaded enough to think the powers that be are always stacking the deck against the common mad. You do make fair points for consideration.

It seems your system accounts for smaller bites of the population having their say heard, versus larger lumps, which may help bring a third party into the discussion. Unfortunately,, as mentioned with mister Bels, it will take a massive upheaval here to bring any of that to fruition, and thus unlikely. But a fair argument for 2A on the longterm stage.

Where are you located? I have spent time in Wales and South Africa for rugby, and sadly had a poor experience with Wales socialized medical system, emergency situation, but likely (hopefully) not the standard!

When you say it’s all an orchestrated government conspiracy to get Trump…

Your claims of being some kind of truth seeking centrist no longer hold any weight.

[JustWinBaby]

I think the Bragg and James case were politically motivated, and I think most objective people agree. Both cases could have been teed up to go after the 2020 election. On the other hand, you could argue they wouldn't have bothered getting started given Trump could have had another 4 years in 2020, so maybe the timing is just coincidental. But like Cohen and Trump's CFO, there needn't be a "conspiracy" when the actors already know what's expected.

The documents case and election fraud seem to be going at a reasonable pace. The GA deal didn't really even emerge until January of 2021, and the documents case was even later. And I think those two cases are fully valid.

Curious there's still been no charges for Russian Collusion or Obstruction though....

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-12-2024, 04:07 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: When you say it’s all an orchestrated government conspiracy to get Trump…

Your claims of being some kind of truth seeking centrist no longer hold any weight.

Oddly I never claimed to be a centrist, or that things were orchestrated by the government.

I did state an opinion on how it seems.


I get that if I am not lock step with one side or the other, labels are thrown out by those insecure with their own position and waiting to attack. They might even jump into a productive conversation to pine for attention.


Well done!

[hollodero]

(05-12-2024, 02:21 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I think there is too large a coincidence all the charges were brought at once, with this timing, along with over charging and charge stacking for someone not to be orchestrating it. Please do not take this as me saying he is innocent of everything, because there is a lot of legal smoke that bear fair investigation and potentially charging.

I don't take it that way, you did not say that. As for the orchestration, of course I don't know. I supppose believing there would be no coordination between the president's party and the judicial system at all in this special situation is naive. I can easily believe in all kinds of possibly informal channels and wishlists and whatnot. I would not know how far that goes though, if say the Biden admin flatout orders all the shots and all the courts and judges just obey. As I said, some things can, for me, be explained another, to me possibly more plausible way.

(05-12-2024, 02:21 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I do admit maybe it is a slapstick clown show of charging, rather than some mastermind.  I suppose I am jaded enough to think the powers that be are always stacking the deck against the common mad.

Oh, against the common man, sure I get that. Trump, born into the financial elites, is certainly not that though. If anything, he used to be one of the powerful people who constantly got away with stuff that would get a common man in trouble.

(05-12-2024, 02:21 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: It seems your system accounts for smaller bites of the population having their say heard, versus larger lumps, which may help bring a third party into the discussion. Unfortunately,, as mentioned with mister Bels, it will take a massive upheaval here to bring any of that to fruition, and thus unlikely. But a fair argument for 2A on the longterm stage.

Also a grim one.

(05-12-2024, 02:21 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Where are you located? I have spent time in Wales and South Africa for rugby, and sadly had a poor experience with Wales socialized medical system, emergency situation, but likely (hopefully) not the standard!

I'm in Austria, since we're not big on rugby you probably never were there, but we're all a socialised Bernie-fantasy utopia land basically. As for experiences with doctors, I just guess one can always get good or bad ones on a good or bad day. I don't know how much socialized medicine plays into that, though with GB I don't know, one hears bad things occasionally. Here most people would not want to change it to Obamacare or a private insurance system.

[Dill]

(05-12-2024, 04:21 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think the Bragg and James case were politically motivated, and I think most objective people agree.  Both cases could have been teed up to go after the 2020 election.  On the other hand, you could argue they wouldn't have bothered getting started given Trump could have had another 4 years in 2020, so maybe the timing is just coincidental.  But like Cohen and Trump's CFO, there needn't be a "conspiracy" when the actors already know what's expected.

The documents case and election fraud seem to be going at a reasonable pace.  The GA deal didn't really even emerge until January of 2021, and the documents case was even later.  And I think those two cases are fully valid.

Curious there's still been no charges for Russian Collusion or Obstruction though....

I think the "no charges for obstruction" has been explained well enough.

But could Barr's firing of Geoffrey Berman possibly explain the "timing"? 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/may/08/trump-says-the-fec-saw-no-merit-in-the-stormy-dani/

https://newrepublic.com/article/180726/trump-election-interference-prosecution-doj-bill-barr

Jordan threatened Bragg with “oversight”: dragging him before his committee repeatedly, threatening him with contempt of Congress, putting a right-wing target on Bragg’s back by publicizing him to draw sharpshooters from as far as Wyoming or Idaho, and the possibility of going to jail if he didn’t answer Jordan’s questions right. He, James Comer, and Bryan Steil—three chairmen of three different committees—wrote to Bragg in March 2023:

Quote:By July 2019 ... federal prosecutors determined that no additional people would be charged alongside [Michael] Cohen.... [Y]our apparent decision to pursue criminal charges where federal authorities declined to do so requires oversight.

They were furious that Bragg would prosecute Trump for a crime that the Department of Justice had already decided and announced that it wasn’t going to pursue.

But why didn’t Bill Barr’s Department of Justice proceed after it had already put Michael Cohen in prison for a year for delivering the check to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet, at least until after the election, and then lying about it? Why didn’t Barr’s DOJ go after the guy who allegedly ordered the check written, the guy who’d had sex with Daniels, the guy whose run for the presidency was in the balance?
Why didn’t the Department of Justice at least investigate (it has a policy against prosecuting a sitting president) the crime it put Cohen in prison for but was possibly directed by, paid for, and also committed by Donald Trump?

For one possible answer let’s turn to Geoffrey Berman, the lifelong Republican and U.S. attorney appointed by Trump to run the prosecutor’s office at the Southern District of New York. He wrote the book Holding the Line, published in September 2022, about his experiences.

In it, he came right out and accused Barr of killing the federal investigation into Trump’s role of directing and covering up that conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. Had Barr not done that, Trump could have been prosecuted in January 2021, right after he left office. And Jim Jordan couldn’t complain that Alvin Bragg was pushing a case the feds had decided wasn’t worth it.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-12-2024, 07:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't take it that way, you did not say that. As for the orchestration, of course I don't know. I supppose believing there would be no coordination between the president's party and the judicial system at all in this special situation is naive. I can easily believe in all kinds of possibly informal channels and wishlists and whatnot. I would not know how far that goes though, if say the Biden admin flatout orders all the shots and all the courts and judges just obey. As I said, some things can, for me, be explained another, to me possibly more plausible way.



Oh, against the common man, sure I get that. Trump, born into the financial elites, is certainly not that though. If anything, he used to be one of the powerful people who constantly got away with stuff that would get a common man in trouble.



Also a grim one.



I'm in Austria, since we're not big on rugby you probably never were there, but we're all a socialised Bernie-fantasy utopia land basically. As for experiences with doctors, I just guess one can always get good or bad ones on a good or bad day. I don't know how much socialized medicine plays into that, though with GB I don't know, one hears bad things occasionally. Here most people would not want to change it to Obamacare or a private insurance system.

To the firs, I get, even if I do not agree. A lot of unknowns. Hence y issue and likely yours. 


I agree DJT is one of the privileged elites, as are many of the US  democratic system system.


How is adding a third or fourth party working for you?

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-12-2024, 04:40 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Oddly I never claimed to be a centrist, or that things were orchestrated by the government.

I did state an opinion on how it seems.


I get that if I am not lock step with one side or the other, labels are thrown out by those insecure with their own position and waiting to attack. They might even jump into a productive conversation to pine for attention.


Well done!

Ok. Well if it’s not the government involved in the orchestrating of stacked charges against Trump and it’s too much to just be a coincidence. Then who?

You are claiming he is a victim? Who do you think is the victimizer?

[JustWinBaby]

(05-12-2024, 08:34 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the "no charges for obstruction" has been explained well enough.

Oh good lord.  Trump and Barr have been out of office for 3+ years.  This is irrational dribble - surely if there was even a modicum of merit, Biden's DOJ would have charged Trump. Also, how many times was Trump impeached for Russian Collusion and Obstruction? Oh, that's right, Pelosi's House shit out the Jan.6 impeachment in literally days, but they never impeached him over Collusion or Obstruction.

So when you lay awake at night wondering why Trump isn't in jail, does it ever occur to that you were deceived and gas lit? No charges, not even an impeachment. It's almost as if Bill Barr, despite protests from CNN, actually told you the truth - it was a nothingburger.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-12-2024, 10:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Oh good lord.  Trump and Barr have been out of office for 3+ years.  This is irrational dribble - surely if there was even a modicum of merit, Biden's DOJ would have charged Trump.  Also, how many times was Trump impeached for Russian Collusion and Obstruction?  Oh, that's right, Pelosi's House shit out the Jan.6 impeachment in literally days, but they never impeached him over Collusion or Obstruction.

So when you lay awake at night wondering why Trump isn't in jail, does it ever occur to that you were deceived and gas lit?  No charges, not even an impeachment.  It's almost as if Bill Barr, despite protests from CNN, actually told you the truth - it was a nothingburger.

What are you even talking about?

I guess a lot on the right must unwillingly block it out of your memory. Because of the total Republican embarrassment and disgrace to our country that it was.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mcconnell-remarks-trump-acquittal/index.html

Republicans followed Mitch McConnell's lead and weaseled out of a guilty verdict on semantics. As is the way of the republican party. Pass the problem off, protect your power.