Perhaps sensing that he cannot possibly win the 2024 presidential election, failed one-term former president Donald Trump went on an extended social media rant Saturday evening in which he claimed Democrats were registering “unvetted migrants” to vote next November.
On his failing Truth Social site, the disgraced ex-president wrote:
“It’s becoming more and more obvious to me why the “Crazed” Democrats are allowing millions and millions of totally unvetted migrants into our once great Country,” Trump told his followers. “IT’S SO THEY CAN VOTE, VOTE, VOTE.
“They are signing them up at a rapid pace, without even knowing who the hell they are. It all makes sense now. Republicans better wake up and do something, before it is too late. Are you listening Mitch McConnell?”
The Donald’s latest bizarre conspiracy theory drew plenty of fact-checking, mockery, and ridicule on Twitter/X, where his Truth Social posts are also shared.
It's illegal for non-citizens to vote, but apparently you're assuming that most of your base is too ignorant to know that. Unfortunately, you're probably right.
Here we go again. A repeat of 2020. Impeached twice for abuse of power, the Senate said the election would judge you. It did…everyone knows you lost. America won.
All you had to do was concede and go back to golfing. Everyone would be happy. Most of all you and your family.
Hopefully, by this time next year, Joe Biden will be preparing for his second inauguration and Trump will be headed to prison for the rest of his miserable life. That’s how we can make America great again.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is absolutely outraged that Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows removed failed former president Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot as a result of his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and his support for the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Collins — who voted to impeach Trump in 2021 but acquitted him in 2019 — weighed in on the action taken by Bellows on Twitter/X, writing, “Maine voters should decide who wins the election – not a Secretary of State chosen by the Legislature. The Secretary of State’s decision would deny thousands of Mainers the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, and it should be overturned.”
Maine voters should decide who wins the election – not a Secretary of State chosen by the Legislature.
The Secretary of State’s decision would deny thousands of Mainers the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, and it should be overturned.
That was a bridge too far for many on social media, especially when you consider a statement Collins made after the Jan. 6 attack in which she thundered:
“President Trump had stoked discontent with a steady barrage of false claims that the election had been stolen from him.
“The allegedly responsible officials were denigrated, scorned, and ridiculed by the President, with the predictable result that his supporters viewed any official that they perceived to be an obstacle to President Trump’s reelection as an enemy of their cause. That set the stage for the storming of the Capitol for the first time in more than 200 years.”
The blatant hypocrisy of Collins’ outrage set off a wave of criticism aimed directly at her.
I want to vote for Bill Clinton again. So by your logic, I can – right?
Sit down, Susan. You canceled yourself out of any ethical high ground when you allowed Trump to run over Americans and Mainers by fighting his impeachment and when you appointed Justices to the SCOTUS who brought our democracy to its knees. You cannot go soon enough.
Sen Collins was wrong about Kavanaugh and it cost women their bodily autonomy. Sen Collins was wrong about Trump and it resulted in an insurrection. She is the last person to be talking about anyone's choice.
New recordings obtained by Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding efforts by the Trump administration to block certification of the 2020 election provide powerful new evidence that prove failed former president Donald Trump’s intent to commit criminal acts, according to legal experts.
The recordings, which were first made public by CNN this week, suggest that Trump and those allied with him flew fake elector ballots to Washington D.C. so they could replace the real ballots with ones that would be favorable to the disgraced ex-president.
Two days before the January 6 insurrection, the Trump campaign’s plan to use fake electors to block President-elect Joe Biden from taking office faced a potentially crippling hiccup: The fake elector certificates from two critical battleground states were stuck in the mail.
So, Trump campaign operatives scrambled to fly copies of the phony certificates from Michigan and Wisconsin to the nation’s capital, relying on a haphazard chain of couriers, as well as help from two Republicans in Congress, to try to get the documents to then-Vice President Mike Pence while he presided over the Electoral College certification.
The operatives even considered chartering a jet to ensure the files reached Washington, DC, in time for the January 6, 2021, proceeding, according to emails and recordings obtained by CNN.
The recordings are of Trump-aligned lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who devised the fake elector scheme and is now cooperating with prosecutors.
Former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams had this to say about the recordings:
“It’s one thing for a jury to read a transcript or even hear someone talk about things they heard somebody else say, it is another thing to hear voices to have sort of an evocative effect, that is more valuable and powerful.”
The tapes, Williams continued, “could be introduced as evidence showing the state mind of not just of the former president, or people around him who knew what they were doing and attempting to take all efforts to get these fake or alternate — their argument is — ballots to Washington, D.C.., it can speak to intent.”
CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen concurred with Williams.
“And the reason those details about the elaborate plan to get all the materials to Washington for Jan. 6 matters so much is they go directly to the intent here.”
He added, “This wasn’t just, as it started out, a preventive measure in case Trump won court cases,” Eisen said. “This was an active alleged conspiracy to have Mike Pence and Congress block the rightful winner of the election from taking office, and Jack Smith has said that that is a criminal conspiracy. And it’s hard to understand how lawyers and other professionals couldn’t see why that was wrong.”
With each day, new and damning evidence comes to light that will help the special counsel make the case against Trump, who is reportedly terrified that he will indeed be found guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) walked into a rhetorical trap of his own creation Thursday when he attempted to defend former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who flubbed a question about the primary cause of the Civil War this week during a campaign event.
Cotton made his comments on Twitter/X, where he suggested that Democrats had supported the expansion of slavery rather than vote for Abraham Lincoln. That, the senator maintained, was what led to war among the states.
“The Civil War started because the American people elected an anti-slavery Republican as president and Democrats revolted rather than accept minor restrictions on the expansion of slavery to the western territories,” Cotton wrote on social media.
The Civil War started because the American people elected an anti-slavery Republican as president and Democrats revolted rather than accept minor restrictions on the expansion of slavery to the western territories.
Really? Wow! That’s one hell of a bizarre reading of history, and it wasn’t long before others on social media began giving Cotton a much-needed lesson on what actually took place in the United States and has transpired in the years since the Civil War ended in 1865.
Hey Siri, please tell Tom Cotton the civil war was 158 years ago and he and his party are rife in confederacy.
Tell US all Tom, why you wanted to keep confederate monuments and were ok with the confederate flag in our Capitol?
MAGA propagandists like Tom Cotton don't want you to understand that Southern racists used to be Democrats but are Republicans now. This partisan sea change happened through the 1960s, '70s and '80s. It's explained in those history books that Republicans don't want you to read. https://t.co/opPre5kaY0
And not long after when those Republicans went against those Americans, our Black Americans, and our Poor Americans, the Democrats QUICKLY picked up the issue and have been providing protections ever since. Know that.
Another ignorant and stupid analogy. This Republican Party doesn’t even resemble the one from 2015 much less 1860. And the white southern Dixiecrats all switched to Republicans in the 1970-80s, so the Democratic Party today also in no way resembles that of 1860. pic.twitter.com/pIE2FhUass
LOL. Democrats today aren't waving or defending the Confederate flag or lamenting about the "lost cause." That's Tom Cotton's GOP. If Lincoln was a Republican today, the MAGA extremists would probably try to assassinate him. https://t.co/7wDAUaK4GP
And you are a Senator? The root cause of the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, is widely regarded to be the issue of slavery, particularly its expansion into new territories and states. This issue was deeply intertwined with economic, political, and social…
On Wednesday, Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a motion with the federal court in Washington, D.C. that could put failed former president Donald Trump in the position of having to abandon one of his main defenses or expose him to a “perjury-fest,” according to former federal prosecutor Harry Litman.
Smith’s motion seeks to block Trump or his legal team from using conspiracy theories to minimize the ex-president’s legal exposure. But it has a much larger impact, Litman noted on Twitter.
There's an important part of Smith's motion today that I think has so far escaped notice. 1.Pages 16 to 19 argue that "the court should exclude in admissible testimony regarding the defendant's alleged state of mind."
“This argument is in contrast to the balance of the motion, which is trying to keep Trump from introducing irrelevant testimony, such as the claim that the prosecution is just a political attacked by the deep state. Even if that were true.”
And of course it isn't, it would've nothing to do with the jury's sole job of deciding the truth of the government allegations. 3. Trump's state of mind is different. It's hugely relevant to the charges. And he's trotted out several different versions of why he didn't have
the requisite intent. 4. The best and classic way to introduce state of mind evidence is through the defendant's own testimony explaining his state of mind. 5. But now we run right into the brick wall of axiom #1: Trump can't testify. It would be a bloodbath, walking him
through the greatest hits of his 1000s of lies, and exposing him to a perjury-fest. An important subtext of Smith's motion is that both parties pretty well understand that. 6. So how can a non-testifying defendant try to introduce evidence of his state of mind? It ain't easy.
7. A witness statement such as "Trump told me he didn't think anything bad would happen" are inadmissible hearsay when offered by Trump. (They're not when offered by the government, but that's a wrinkle that's not important.)
8. He might try to pull other fast ones, asking witnesses their impression of what his state of mind was. That's where Smith's motion comes in. He methodically seals up different avenues that Trump could try. A non-expert witness can only testify based on personal knowledge,
and they wouldn't have personal knowledge of his state of mind. And an expert witness testimony about Trump state of mind would not be "helpful" to the jury, which could observe and rock conclusions as well as an expert.
9. Smith wants trump's witnesses to be limited to what they personally observed and not inject any impressions about Trump's state of mind. 10. If Chutkan rules for Smith, it's hard to see how Trump can sneak in evidence of his state of mind
(except for testifying, but see axiom 1). 11. But, like the lead argument in the motion to keep Trump from making irrelevant political charges, this will be an area where, if Chutkan grant the motion, Trump will try all kinds of sneaky maneuvers at trial to get around it.
In other words, Smith has covered every base and is closing the net around Trump. He knows how the former president is fond of lying, but if Trump does that under oath, he’ll seal his own fate. And if he tries to use other bogus defenses, the special counsel also has those avenues covered, too.