- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
He may not be in office, but Donald Trump has been speaking with the powers that be about Israel’s war on Gaza—but it’s not in an effort to end the genocide.
Instead, Trump has allegedly been talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert a cease-fire deal, fearing that doing so could help Vice President Kamala Harris win in November, according to PBS.
“The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the Prime Minister of Israel, urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign,” said PBS’s Judy Woodruff Monday night. “So, I don’t know where—who knows whether that will come about or not, but I have to think that the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, and that’s to work on that one.”
How about the media stop using caveats like “may have” when shit is entirely 100% clear.
There are laws on the books regarding things like this. There is no may have. It’s cut and fucking dried.
Because they don’t want to be sued.
It’s only libel if it’s not true. If he threatens to sue, grow some balls, call his bluff and make him prove it’s not true in court.
Threatening to sue, effectively forcing the media to back down because it would too inconvenient to deal with a suit is how Trump keeps getting away with his bullshit.
No, it’s about access. They don’t want to lose access.
There is the Logan Act, but he likely would not be prosecuted under it, let alone convicted. From Wikipedia:
The Logan Act gets talked about much more than it has ever been used. There’s also a debate as to whether the Logan Act is even unconstitutional.
Also trump is above the law so the headline is pointless
They really can’t say “has” because it’s possible he wins the case in court. It should be something like “seems to have” though. “May have” means there’d a chance. It should be something that means “it is likely.”
Sorry, but no.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t work that way. It’s a legal fiction imposed upon the courts and justice system as a means of (poorly) protecting the civil rights and liberties of those who are accused.
On that, it’s a very important “fiction”- don’t get me wrong.
What it does not do, however, is change historical reality. If Jackass murders a homeless woman, Jackass is a murderer- even if that woman’s murder was never properly investigated, and he was never suspected/indicted/arraigned/convicted for murder.
One’s guilt at having committed a crime does not, in fact, change based on the outcome of a trial. After all the officers of the court, and the jury, are all human and prone to errors. They get it wrong. Sometimes that means guilty people go free, and sometimes that means innocent people are convicted.
But the truth of that guilt is established when one commits a crime.
So I’ll say it: Trump is a mass murderer.
As president, he had a legal, moral and ethical obligation to act to protect Americans from harm during moments of crisis
This includes from things like COVID. He had a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to voice sound medical guidance like “hey folks, I know it’s tough and it looks a little silly, but we need you to stay home if you can, and if you can’t, wear a mask. A real mask.”
He failed us in that moment of crisis and as a direct consequence of his rampant bullshit; millions of Americans needlessly died.