Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

New Donald Trump thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

Michael Flynn's judge – 3 possible reasons he hired a defense attorney

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/michael-flynn-judge-3-possible-reasons-hired-lawyer-jenna-ellis

Judge Emmet Sullivan is now a one-man circus as judge, prosecutor and defendant in the same case.

After the D.C. Circuit Court last week ordered Judge Sullivan to provide his reasoning in writing for not granting the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss in the Michael Flynn prosecution, the judge has taken the highly unusual step by hiring a defense attorney to respond for him.

Odd, given that judicial officers provide their rationale for rulings in writing routinely as part of their job, providing the legal authority they relied upon. This is done precisely so that the record is preserved for a higher court to review upon appeal.

But Sullivan didn’t render a final judgment that is now being appealed in the regular course of proceedings. He’s been ordered to “show cause” — to explain his actions — which puts him in the awkward situation of defending himself before the appellate court.

So why can’t Sullivan answer now for himself? Three possible reasons come to mind:

First, he could be concerned that any response will be used against him in disciplinary action or some adverse consequence.

Being in a defensive posture may require defense counsel. Article III judges are lifetime appointments, but still subject to some disciplinary measures under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which provides the ethical and judicial conduct federal judges must adhere to.

There already appears to be sufficient evidence just in the public record of Sullivan’s actions in the Flynn case that he has violated several of the canons, including that judges should uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and that a judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently. Sullivan could face private or public censure, or request for his voluntary retirement.

One could also argue that he is engaging in unethical political activity by allowing amicus statements against the motion to dismiss when he previously denied amicus 24 times in this same case, citing the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. So why allow it now, against Flynn? I’m sure the appellate court wants to know.

Second, perhaps Sullivan just doesn’t have a solid rationale.

Hiring a high-profile defense attorney could help bolster his position and help him come up with a back-end explanation that perhaps he had planned to create after hearing “arguments" from his appointed amicus. Judge John Gleeson was ostensibly going to help with that, so now Sullivan is doubling down by engaging a defense attorney to help him.

As I’ve previously written, there is not any genuine legal argument an amicus could provide that would justify a judge ordering the prosecutor to continue their case when they have moved to dismiss (even after a plea has entered), especially on the clear bases the government provided in their motion. The bizarre trajectory of this case began as political and is continuing to be political, rather than just.

If Congress were doing their constitutionally vested oversight responsibility of the judicial branch rather than using it for purely political purposes, this is an example of a case meriting impeachment inquiry. Not because the House should side with any politically charged bias, but because Judge Sullivan certainly may not. Federal judges may be removed from office upon impeachment and trial in the Senate. Fifteen prior federal judges have been impeached and of those, eight resulted in convictions and removal.

Third, Sullivan could be bribed, is threatened, or is fulfilling a political promise.

There is no evidence that I’m aware of to lean toward this possibility over any others, but it’s one explanation for the bizarre behavior, especially from a judge who by all reports had a record that wasn’t particularly noteworthy for being so political and blatantly disregarding the law prior to the Flynn case. It’s also not unheard, and with everything else we already know about the setup, cover-up, and railroaded prosecution, it's possible.

Also, with the onerously politically biased statements already on the record from Sullivan and now dragging this on further by appointing an amicus, he appears to have some vested interest in the outcome of this case beyond his constitutional judicial role. What is his end game here? I’m sure the appellate court is interested in knowing that, too.

But whatever Judge Sullivan’s reasons, Michael Flynn deserves a speedy resolution and an impartial judge, like every person in our justice system. Further, the American public deserves to know, and the D.C. Circuit correctly ordered Sullivan to respond. The fact he apparently feels he needs to be represented by defense counsel in doing so just adds another eyebrow-raising factor into the story that doesn’t seem to make any sense.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2020 at 7:14 AM, Howe said:

 

Yet another lie included in the Mueller Dossier. Mueller was supposed to investigate "claims" of Russia hacking the 2016 election. This confirmed and documented liar was annihilated by Congressional Republicans. He was ridiculed, humiliated and absolutely disgraced on live national television during that ridiculous Mueller hearing.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's Executive Order on Twitter Is a Total Mess

https://reason.com/2020/05/28/trumps-executive-order-on-twitter-is-a-total-mess/

Quote

Disrespected by Twitter, President Donald Trump is throwing a tantrum in the form of an executive order that declares Twitter and Facebook are the "functional equivalent of a traditional public forum" and should "not infringe on protected speech." The president seems to have bypassed the typical interagency review process in issuing his new rule. This means the insanely overreaching order (read the leaked draft here) wasn't written with an eye toward conforming to federal law or constitutional protections of speech and commerce. And make no mistake: the draft order, when it manages to be coherent, is insanely unconstitutional.

But maybe the order having teeth isn't the point here. Trump's mandate might not hold up in court, but just by issuing it, Trump sends a not-so-subtle threat to Twitter, Facebook, and other internet companies. Remember, the apparent impetus for this order was Twitter posting a fact check after one of Trump's tweets.

Should social media companies be getting into the fact-checking game? It's a bad idea, if you ask me. But it's a perfectly legal thing for them to do.

The standard Republican talking point on this right now is that affixing fact-checking links to some tweets makes Twitter a "publisher" instead of a "platform" or "forum." It might make for an interesting semantic distinction, but the legally significant issue is whether Twitter is the speaker or creator of Donald Trump's tweets. If not, it is not legally liable for them. (The same goes for every other user of Twitter, too.)

If you're thinking, "But, but, what about when Twitter creates a fact-check link and presents it after a user's posts?" Courts have routinely ruled that a digital company's decisions about how to present content (or what content to present at all) do not transform it into the speaker of user content.

But back to Trump's new order: It's an Orwellian document, defining federal government regulation of Americans' speech as "free speech" and private questioning of government authority as "censorship." In Trump's formulation, private companies can censor the most powerful person in the country but not the other way around.

This is a bad joke. To put out something like this EO and disingenuously wrap it in the rhetoric of "free speech" is obscene. https://t.co/mH2YArUHAn

— Julian Sanchez (@normative) May 28, 2020

 

Interestingly, after years of downplaying the idea that foreign actors used social media in an attempt to influence the 2016 election, Trump now opportunistically claims that the U.S. government must have power over these platforms to stop the scourge of "disinformation from foreign governments."

But his biggest complaint is about alleged ideological bias by private companies. Despite previously rallying around the rights of conservative businesses to choose who they do business with and decline to display liberal messages (think florists and bakers), Trump now says that private businesses should have to be totally content-neutral conduits of whatever messages that customers want to broadcast.

To justify his position that the feds can compel companies to display messages from private citizens and government officials alike, Trump turns to a mangled conception of the federal law known as Section 230. This is the 1990s statute stipulating that online platforms and publishers are not to be treated as the speaker of user-generated content (i.e., if I defame someone on Facebook, Facebook isn't on the hook for defamation).

The order erroneously suggests that Section 230 only applies if online companies moderate content in ways that are explicitly laid out in their terms of service, though nothing in Section 230 comes close to saying this.

It complains that Twitter has been "restricting online content" for reasons other than those laid out as permissible reasons in Section 230(c)(2). This is the part of the statute saying companies don't become liable for all user content by virtue of moderating content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable."

But "otherwise objectionable" is a completely discretionary standard and can encompass just about anything.

The legal folks seem to think that this whole thing is both a) legally laughable and nonetheless b) a way of making Twitter and Facebook's life very difficult.

— Jacob Ward (@byjacobward) May 28, 2020

 

The order relies heavily on conservatives' victimhood conspiracy du jour: that social media companies are colluding to suppress conservative voices. It's an objectively untrue viewpoint, as countless booted and suspended liberal, libertarian, and apolitical accounts can tell you. But even if it were true that Twitter or Facebook only takes action against conservatives—or if we take the more believable assertion that current content moderation policies tend to hit some political viewpoints harder than others—it would still not fall outside the bounds of Section 230(c)(2) moderation, which requires only that the moderator find some speech to be "objectionable."

Somehow, out of Trump's several paragraphs of paraphrasing Section 230 with random erroneous asides, federal officials are supposed to intuit a new paradigm and "apply section 230(c) according to the interpretation set out in this section."

The document also instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to define concepts that Trump just made up for this order and then propose ways to tell if companies are running afoul of them. Trump wants the FCC to determine the conditions under which content moderation will be considered "deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider's terms of service"—but then what? Nothing in Section 230 says a company can't moderate in ways "inconsistent with" their terms of service. And it's laughable to think that bureaucrats will be able to tell whether thousands of individual content moderators are making decisions based on the right reasons or on secretly "deceptive" grounds.

The FCC is also tasked with defining this bit of Trumpian gobbledygook: the conditions under which content moderation will be considered "the result of inadequate notice, the product of unreasoned explanation, or having been undertaking without a meaningful opportunity to be heard."

If you've ever wondered why Internet companies don't follow their own rules, this is it. The one time Twitter attempts to elevate social discourse by experimenting with moderation that goes outside the binary leave up/takedown scheme, it's met with an #executiveorder.

— Jess Miers (@jess_miers) May 28, 2020

One of the most concrete parts of the executive order, and perhaps the only feasible part, is a bit saying that all federal agencies must review and submit (within 30 days) a report on the amount of money they spend on social media advertising. It comes in a section titled "Prohibition on Spending Federal Taxpayer Dollars on Advertising with Online Platforms That Violate Free Speech Principles."

Insofar as this order helps keep stupid government propaganda campaigns off social media and reduces what the public pays for those campaigns, great! Alas, Trump doesn't really have any clue what the criteria for preventing these ads might be and didn't bother finding out whether he has the statutory authority to require this before writing the order. It actually asks the heads of each executive department and agency to independently review "the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform" and then tell Trump "the statutory authorities available to restrict advertising dollars to online platforms."

The second-to-last part of the order is another bit that sounds vaguely weighty but is actually just a bunch of big words sort of strung together in the way that might fool random Trump fans into thinking he's taking action. He declares that Facebook and Twitter are "the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum"—which would essentially mean that they are the "functional equivalent" of government property.

But of course, Trump has no authority to simply seize these private companies via executive order. And even if he could just declare that Twitter and Facebook were the digital equivalent of the National Mall, this would mean that government actors would face serious hurdles to restricting speech on them. Bottom line: Unless government officials are going to completely take over Twitter and Facebook content moderation, invoking public forums here is just bluster.

Ultimately, the order's lack of standard review very much shows.

It seems the White House apparently didn't consult with the Federal Communications Commission about the order, which would mean it did not go through the standard interagency review process.

"Worth remembering that with prior WH attempts to draft an executive order targeting social media companies, the FCC and FTC (which are led by Republican chairmen) privately pushed back on being deputized to police political speech on social platforms," noted CNN tech reporter Brian Fung on Twitter.

"Much of the order could quickly get bogged down in a thicket of legal and constitutional questions," Fung added. "Just for example, the FTC reports to Congress, not the WH."

Good luck with this one, King Trump.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twitter using CNN and the Washington Post as “fact checkers” is ridiculous. Politifact still lists the claim that all 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies agreed the Russians hacked the DNC servers is “true”.😂

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Will ‘Designate’ Antifa a Terrorist Organization

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/george-floyd-protests-designating-antifa-terrorist-organization-not-necessary/

Quote

According to President Trump and his most ardent supporters, he is a “disruptor” here to shake up established Washington ways. Nevertheless, in announcing that he will “designate” Antifa, the far-left radical movement, as a terrorist organization, he is pulling a page from the Swamp’s playbook. It is political rhetoric portrayed as legally significant action to bring to heel an array of sociopaths that, to be sure, are playing their now familiar instigator’s role in the rioting that roils American cities.   

 

The purported designation would be pointless, in that the means of taking aggressive enforcement action against Antifa, and against domestic terrorism generally, are plentiful and ready to hand. The president’s move would also be legally invalid because, under federal law and for very sound reasons, designation is available only for foreign terrorist organizations.

Antifa is a domestic enterprise. The name “Antifa” has a European pedigree, going back to the self-described anti-fascist movements of the radical Left, beginning in the 1920s. And there are some overseas groups that also use the name. To the extent, however, that Antifa has a relevant identifiable existence as an entity promoting seditionist violence in the United States, it is as a loosely knit, interstate American group (as much as Antifa itself would be repulsed at the thought of being part of AmeriKKKa and fancies itself as an agent of global anarchism).

As the New York Times has reported, Antifa is organized in local autonomous cells around the country. Though it is said to lack “official” leaders, it does have operatives who move across the country making mayhem. More significantly for present purposes, on Sunday (the same day the president’s imminent designation of Antifa was announced), the Trump Justice Department branded Antifa a domestic terrorist group. As Attorney General Bill Barr’s press statement put it, “the violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”

Federal counterterrorism law provides for the designation only of foreign terrorist organizations. It criminalizes material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations. The distinction between foreign and domestic terrorism has an important history.

There is no need to designate a domestic insurrectionist group as a terrorist organization, because there is an extensive panoply of laws, at the state and federal level, by which such groups can be investigated, prosecuted, and otherwise thwarted.

...

Interestingly, President Trump and his supporters, who rightly complain about the abusive surveillance of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, have recently argued that FISA must be reformed to make it more difficult, if not illegal, to subject Americans to national-security surveillance. They insist that, unless the FBI can show probable cause that Americans are guilty of crimes, the government should leave Americans alone.

Yet now, many of the very same Trump supporters want to designate a domestic group as a terrorist organization. Since we already have a slew of criminal laws for investigating terrorists, the only point of such a designation would be to permit the surveillance of Americans in the absence of probable cause that they have committed crimes. But that’s the very abuse these Trump supporters claim to find objectionable about FISA. Pardon me, but I’m confused.

We should absolutely treat Antifa as a terrorist organization. Some (mainly) anti-Trump commentators claim that Antifa is too amorphous to be regarded as an “organization.” That is specious. Our law does not require conspiracies and racketeering enterprises to be regimentally organized and hierarchical. Loosely knit groups that scheme to carry out violent criminal objectives qualify for enforcement action.

We can investigate Antifa as terrorists, prosecute them as terrorists, sentence them as terrorists, and give them harsh prison sentences befitting terrorists. But there is neither a need nor a legal basis to “designate” them as terrorists.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

Donald Trump isnt gonna give up the presidency when he loses...is he?

The military-industrial-complex, which basically runs the country,  has zero interest in such a Constitutional crisis.  Such a thing threatens their profit margins.  So if Mr. Trump were to signal as such he would be privately persuaded that a peaceful transition of the presidency is in his, and his family's, best interest.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2020 at 3:45 PM, gonzoron said:

Police State

Riots May Be Destructive, but Abusive Policing Is Tyranny

https://reason.com/2020/06/01/riots-may-be-destructive-but-abusive-policing-is-tyranny/

Quote

Since the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin—assisted by three murderously indifferent cop buddies—protests over abusive and lethal police conduct have spread across the country and turned destructive. Law-and-order types take that as an opening to shift the topic from the long, troubling history of law enforcement in this country to the excesses of the protesters. Conservative-populist pundit Tucker Carlson put the cherry on top of that tactic when he invoked the word "tyranny" and applied it not to government employees who deploy violence as a tool of first resort when terrorizing communities, but to those who turn violent in response.

"Rioting is a form of tyranny," Carlson said on his Fox News show. "The strong and the violent oppress the weak and the unarmed. It is oppression."

Ironically, Carlson illustrated his point with video of people attacking police cruisers of the sort driven by Officers Chauvin, Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng, and Thomas K. Lane, all of whom had either pinned Floyd or held back concerned passersby attempting to intervene. Subsequently, the Minneapolis Police Department abandoned the besieged Third Precinct building where the four officers worked and it was rapidly set ablaze by an angry crowd. None of that seems like "tyranny" so much as it looks like violent pushback from members of the public tired of being tyrannized by abusive government enforcers who have a reputation for specifically targeting African Americans. It more closely resembled the 1854 attempted storming of the federal courthouse in Boston to free escaped slave Anthony Burns—during which a U.S. marshal was killed—than it did an exercise in oppression.

....

A multitude of laws enforced selectively is a national problem.

"On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce," Yale Law School's Stephen L. Carter wrote in 2014 after New York City cops killed Eric Garner during a confrontation rooted in suspicion that he was illegally selling loose cigarettes. "I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you."

Whether death, or injury, or loss of liberty is the final result, the victims of a plague of laws and their enforcement might be anybody; the March killing of Duncan Lemp, who was white, by police in Montgomery County, Maryland excited anger and threats to arrest his family for protesting. But African-Americans notice that an awful lot of the victims of abusive policing look like Breonna Taylor, or Charles Kinsey, or Philando Castile, or George Floyd—black like them, or otherwise members of groups that often get the short end of the stick when it comes to law enforcement.

"Police arrested 40 people for social-distancing violations from March 17 through May 4," The New York Times reported last month. "Of those arrested, 35 people were black, four were Hispanic and one was white." Nobody was killed, fortunately, but some were punched or knocked to the ground. And while the arrests did provoke anger, no violence beyond the arrests themselves resulted.

But everybody has a breaking point.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Tried To Register To Vote In Florida Using D.C. Address, Report Says

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/06/03/trump-tried-to-register-to-vote-in-florida-using-dc-address-report-says/#15173ba373c4

FTA:

According to registration records obtained by The Washington Post, Trump gave his legal address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW—the address of the White House—in his original application.

Trump resubmitted his application 31 days later, according to the report, using a Florida address, allowing him to vote by mail in the March Republican presidential primary.

In a high-profile move, Trump said last year that he was changing his primary residence from his Manhattan penthouse at Trump Tower to the private Mar-a-Lago club he owns in Palm Beach, Florida, tweeting that he had “been treated very badly by the political leaders of both the city and state” of New York.

 

SURPRISING FACT

On a call with the nation’s governors on Monday to address unrest and protests following George Floyd’s death, Trump—a native New Yorker—said “I live in Manhattan.” 

 

BIG NUMBER

0% — That’s the income tax rate in Florida, which is one of a handful of states that don’t collect personal income tax. That fact has been suggested as being one of the reasons for Trump’s move.

Does he really even know where he lives?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Is Lindsey Graham About To Have A Problem?

https://www.fitsnews.com/2020/06/05/is-lindsey-graham-about-to-have-a-problem/

One of Trump's lap dogs about to be dragged out of the closet.

That explains why he went from being all anti trump to pro trump. 

Bet ole Russia and Trump knew this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2020 at 8:05 PM, gonzoron said:

Is Lindsey Graham About To Have A Problem?

https://www.fitsnews.com/2020/06/05/is-lindsey-graham-about-to-have-a-problem/

One of Trump's lap dogs about to be dragged out of the closet.

That explains why he went from being all anti trump to pro trump. 

Bet ole Russia and Trump knew this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

That explains why he went from being all anti trump to pro trump. 

Bet ole Russia and Trump knew this. 

So what if he is gay?  It could just show how bad some of the legislation being pushed is if he votes against it while being gay.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Trump is so mentally weak, he needs a crappy pollsters to make him feel better. 

Those same people that said Eric Cantor was going to win by 34 (he lost to Dave brat by 11). 

Jack Kingston a senator from Georgia used those pollsters, had him in the lead by a decent margin...and he lost in a run off to senator Perdue by 1.76 points

Lol. 

Screenshot_2020-06-08-16-17-56.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, swordfish said:

So what if he is gay?  It could just show how bad some of the legislation being pushed is if he votes against it while being gay.  

I don't care that hes gay... More power to him. 

Im just saying it explains the 180 turnaround from being so anti trump to being pro trump... Trump being the crook probably black mailed him. 

Also, i agree all the anti lgbt he was pushing looks even worse if lady g were to come out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump to resume trademark rallies after coronavirus hiatus

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-to-resume-campaign-rallies-after-coronavirus-hiatus

President Trump will resume hosting campaign rallies sometime in the next two weeks, returning one of the president's most potent weapons to his arsenal as the 2020 campaign season enters a pivotal stretch, Fox News is told.

Trump had suspended the rallies, which energize his base and allow his team to collect a treasure trove of voter data, in early March amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“Americans are ready to get back to action and so is President Trump," Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale told Fox News. "The Great American Comeback is real and the rallies will be tremendous. You’ll again see the kind of crowds and enthusiasm that Sleepy Joe Biden can only dream of.”

As late as March 9, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, remarked that going to campaign rallies may not be a bad idea.

DEMS WHO ENFORCED STRICT CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWNS ARE NOW OKAY WITH 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' PROTESTS

"You know, I can’t comment on campaign rallies," Fauci told reporters. "It really depends. We are having as we all said — this is something in motion. This is an evolving thing. ... If you want to talk about large gatherings in a place you have community spread, I think that’s a judgment call, and if someone decides they want to cancel it, I wouldn’t publicly criticize them."

Trump had suspended the rallies, which energize his base and allow his team to collect a treasure trove of voter data, in early March amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“Americans are ready to get back to action and so is President Trump," Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale told Fox News. "The Great American Comeback is real and the rallies will be tremendous. You’ll again see the kind of crowds and enthusiasm that Sleepy Joe Biden can only dream of.”

As late as March 9, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, remarked that going to campaign rallies may not be a bad idea.

DEMS WHO ENFORCED STRICT CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWNS ARE NOW OKAY WITH 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' PROTESTS

Trump had suspended the rallies, which energize his base and allow his team to collect a treasure trove of voter data, in early March amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“Americans are ready to get back to action and so is President Trump," Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale told Fox News. "The Great American Comeback is real and the rallies will be tremendous. You’ll again see the kind of crowds and enthusiasm that Sleepy Joe Biden can only dream of.”

As late as March 9, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, remarked that going to campaign rallies may not be a bad idea.

“CNN Polls are as Fake as their Reporting,” Trump tweeted early Monday. “Same numbers, and worse, against Crooked Hillary. The Dems would destroy America!”

The change-up also follows statements by many Democrats in charge of big cities -- including several who once insisted on strict quarantine measures -- championing the nationwide mass demonstrations over the in-custody death of George Floyd, sans social distancing. Epidemiologists, too, have abruptly changed their tune, even though they once said lockdown measures were so important that they justified widespread unemployment and business closures.

"We spent the last couple of months being hectored by public health experts and earnestly righteous media personalities who insisted that easing lockdown policies was immoral, that refusing to social distance or wear masks was nigh upon murderous," Jonah Goldberg wrote for the G-File. "They even suggested that protests were somehow profane. But now that the George Floyd protests are serving as some kind of Great Awokening, many of the same are saying 'never mind' about all of that. Protests aren’t profane, they’re glorious and essential—if they agree with what you’re protesting about."

More and more states are now reopening pursuant to federal guidelines and local leaders' assessments, and the nonenforcement of quarantine measures during the Floyd protests has left governors with little room to argue for extending the lockdowns.

Prior to suspending rallies in March, the Trump campaign had previously been eyeing, but had not yet announced, a rally in Tampa, Florida, on March 25.

CORONAVIRUS TIMELINE SHOWS CHANGING RHETORIC ON PANDEMIC

The massive events are often an opportunity for Trump to hone attack lines against his opponents -- but also present chances for them to hit back. At a campaign rally in late February, for example,  Trump calls Democrats' criticisms of his coronavirus response "their new hoax."

More and more states are now reopening pursuant to federal guidelines and local leaders' assessments, and the nonenforcement of quarantine measures during the Floyd protests has left governors with little room to argue for extending the lockdowns.

Biden and other Democrats then falsely accused Trump of calling the virus itself a hoax. Several fact-checkers including The Washington Post make clear, Trump was referring to the Democrats' response to the virus.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...