I think we’re dealing with two different antecedents:
At least that’s how I’d read it.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Narrator: “It won’t.”
It’s basic human psychology at play here. Changing your mind about Trump is an admission that you were gullible enough to have been duped by a con man. Much easier to say that you knew what he was like all along but it doesn’t matter.
… and Biden’s worse.
“Carl? Anything to add?”
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
― Carl Sagan
Is it? I mean, in a way, I understand what you’re getting at. It’s hard to admit you’re wrong. Politicians are often castigated as being flip floppers if they even change their mind. Personally, I think it’s a hallmark of intelligence when an individual is able to reassess their opinion with the introduction of new evidence. But, yeah, it’s tough. But with Trump, it goes beyond the pale. You have to really do a lot of mental gymnastics to ignore what he’s done. From mocking a reporter’s disability to insulting McCain for being a POW and his intentions on January 6th, 2020, you really have to work hard to ignore what Trump is doing.
I’m starting to better understand how systematic sexual harrassment and/or abuse can go on for decades despite it being an open secret. People are willing to ignore, excuse, or even cover up the most vile of behavior when it suits their needs.
I’ve said on numerous occasions: they either love Trump in spite of who he is or because of who he is.
For an unconscionable number of his supporters, the absolutely appalling aspects of the guy is truly a feature, not a bug.
“Deplorables” fell pretty far short of the mark.
It is. And intelligence is a commodity in chronically short supply.
Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, once famously retorted to a journalist who pointed out that Adenauer had changed his mind on a subject “Was kümmert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern?”, “What do I care about my drivel from yesterday?”. Though I don’t agree with all of his politics, he was a politician of format.
Regardless, it still was a gaffe, uttered at a supposedly private gathering that wasn’t, and then repeated by the right millions of times because it helps them politically.
I’m far from certain an espionage indictment would hurt Trump in Nov. 2024, but it might. That word espionage sounds bad. Insulting potential swing voters would not help here.
Or, it needed to be said more often and backed by a growing mountain of evidence, as often as possible.
The shyness of not wanting to call people for their BS might be the big thing allowing the BS to continue. Treating a liar like they aren’t a liar just emboldens them.
So… As I understand this latest revelation about Trump removing classified documents:
- Trump removed a document containing sensitive defense department information about plans for attacking Iran
- Plans like this are not unusual; The DOD probably has plans for every country, including Canada
- Trump retained this document after his term of office was over, and refused to return it (along with other documents) upon request
- Trump had a meeting at his Bedminster golf club that was recorded. In attendance were others who had no security clearance
- Trump indicated that he was irritated about a news article that implied that General Milley was concerned in the waning days of the Trump presidency that Trump would go off half-cocked and try to attack Iran
- Trump told people (recorded) at the meeting at Bedminster that he had this document (paper rustling noise) that he wished he could use to discredit Milley, as it showed Milley’s plans to attack Iran.
- Milley did not really have plans to attack Iran - this was a contingency document prepared by DOD (see above)
- By Trump’s words, he showed that he was aware that the document was classified, and that he was unable to show it to anyone to exact his revenge to “discredit” Milley. This undercuts any defense that Trump was unaware of the classified nature of the documents he removed after his presidency, including “declassifying with his mind” or “I can do what I want” or “executive privilege” or whatever. He knew what he had, he knew he was not allowed to have it, and he was not giving it back.
- He took the classified DOD document for a personal benefit - to keep in case he needed to “discredit” General Milley, in order to sooth his own ego.
- It’s unclear if the actual classified document itself was waved around during the (recorded) meeting.
- I am unclear if this particular DOD document was among those recovered during the search(s) at the Trump properties. Does Trump still have it? It is at Bedminster? Was it returned?
The hallmark of the scientific method. I read a recent article that touched upon that in religious fundamentalists. Not politics per se but evolution deniers and inerrant Bible believers. They seem to believe that scientist/priests hand down their decisions from on high having thought it all up ala Aristotle and the rest of us all worship that. They have no idea how peer-reviewed journals work and the acrimony that goes on behind the scenes until a working hypothesis is hammered out.
While reading it I was thinking of the political angle, how some people would rather endure a bad authoritarian than think things through for themselves because the authoritarian does their thinking for them.
Fox News and Breitbart didn’t invent anything. They’re merely profiting off of what was already there.
you have summarized exactly.
august was traditionally a quiet news month. i don’t think it will be this year. i’m reckoning on geogia and smith sending out indictments, and not just to trump. august would be the best time to deal with anyone in the house or senate, as congress usually recesses in august.
i do find irony in that this latest tidbit was due to mark meadows’ book. that was not a best seller, but it may have a few more sales now.
We saw this play out in the general public during the pandemic. Science is bumbling and messy, but the mistakes and missteps get beaten down by the evidence. The public wanted “Science!” to solve Covid at once, and was confused by the early uncertainty and the rapid adjustments due to the evolving evidence. You’ll still here some people (even presumably well educated pundits) complain about we shouldn’t trust scientists because they said one thing in early 2020 and then something else later.
How much more often?
Suppose that googling (or an improved ChatGPT), right after the election, showed that Trumpers had been deeply and angrily insulted X times more in the past year as in year before, and Trump won the election. Is there any value of X where we should say — insulting has been tried and didn’t work, and we should look into the Dale Carnegie flatter-those-you-wish-to-influence approach? Or is the effectiveness of calling Trump voters deplorables, or worse, unfalsifiable?
P.S. There is a middle ground where you heavily criticize Donald Trump while being more open-minded about his voters.
P.P.S. Maybe I should take my own advice, implied above, and stop calling Trump supporters Trumpers.
Scientifically, you’d need to define insulting first.
Saying, “Your mama wears army boots.” Could be classified as an insult, but it’s not what we’re talking about here. The ask wasn’t for any arbitrary insult, it was for evidence-backed insults, in territory that the accused would be unable to justify to themselves.
“The 2016 Republican Policy document says right up front, ‘The President and the party represent all people in the country of America, regardless of political affiliation. It also says to preserve and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.’ You’re advocating to lock up Democrats, without going through the Constitutionally mandated standard of due process. That’s offensive to the country and to your party. How are you not ashamed of yourself, reprobate?”
Now, once we’ve defined insulting, then we can measure it.
If actual, proper insults have gone up and there’s not been any penetration, then you can mark the hypothesis as a failure. But you need to perform the test first.
Moderating:
Let’s stick to the topic at hand, which is very specific and relates solely to the investigation into Trump’s potential mishandling of classified materials. Please cease discussions about prior gaffes made by other politicians, calling people on their BS, the basis for some persons wanting an authoritarian government, the relative certainty/uncertainty of science, how to define an insult, etc. for other threads. While these are all worthy topics of discussion, they are not a good fit for this thread.
Thanks.
"One of the laws cited by the Justice Department in seeking the warrant used to search Mar-a-Lago last year, known as the Espionage Act, was enacted by Congress during World War I, decades before President Harry S. Truman issued an executive order creating the modern classification system for the executive branch.
As a result, the Espionage Act makes no reference to whether a document has been deemed classified. Instead, it makes it a crime to retain, without authorization, documents related to the national defense that could be used to harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary."
ny times quote.
the tape is just one more nail in a bed of coffin nails. it makes charging him easier and clearer.
Deleted
Moderating:
Per moderator instructions earlier in the thread, please drop this hijack now. Thanks.