The right's response to Hitlergate is to give Trump's authoritarianism advance permission. read more
"Black Insurrectionist," the anonymous social media persona behind some of the most widely circulated conspiracy theories about the 2024 election, can be traced to a man from upstate New York. He's also white.
Officials in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, are investigating about 2,500 voter registrations after election workers discovered signs that they may be fraudulent.
A super PAC with Republican Party ties has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent days to support the Green Party presidential candidacy of Jill Stein in Wisconsin, in another sign that the supporters of the major parties believe her campaign could affect the election result. read more
Third-party candidates will be on the ballot in all of the top battleground states, drawing increased scrutiny over how they could influence the outcome of the presidential election in two weeks. Vice President Harris and former President Trump are statistically tied in many of these swing states, meaning a percentage point or two going to another candidate could change the outcome of the White House race. read more
Even the jurors said she wasn't raped.
#23 | Posted by lfthndthrds
But somehow the judge found that she was raped. In the very quote from the judicial opinion that I copy/pasted. As the article notes "US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial, wrote that the trial evidence demonstrated Trump "raped" Carroll in the plain sense of the word."
But I guess we can rely upon Trump's testimony in court to refute that. Oh, what's that? He refused to testify at that trial, like he always refuses to testify at his trials? That's weird. I heard something about people who do that, but I can't remember ...
If you don't think what Trump did to E. Jean Carroll was rape, that's fine. Would be terrible if you or someone you care about is ever "not raped" the same way.
#32 | Posted by censored
Let's clear this up once and for all. The reason the jurors didn't find that Trump raped her is because at the time of Trump's trial rape was defined as being sexual intercourse. That law in NY state has since been changed partly as a result of Trump's case:
New York expands the legal definition of rape to include many forms of nonconsensual sexual contactwww.pbs.org
Jan 30, 2024
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) New York will expand its legal definition of rape to include various forms of nonconsensual sexual contact, under a bill signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul on Tuesday.
The state's current limited definition was a factor in writer E. Jean Carroll's sexual abuse and defamation case against former President Donald Trump. The jury in the federal civil trial rejected the writer's claim last May that Trump had raped her in the 1990s, instead finding the former president responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse.
The current law defines rape as ------- penetration by a penis. The new law broadens the definition to include nonconsensual ----, oral, and ------- sexual contact. Highlighting Carroll's case at a bill signing ceremony in Albany, the Democratic governor said the new definition will make it easier for rape victims to bring cases forward to prosecute perpetrators. The law will apply to sexual assaults committed on or after Sept. 1.
"The problem is, rape is very difficult to prosecute," Hochul said. "Physical technicalities confuse jurors and humiliate survivors and create a legal gray area that defendants exploit."
In Carroll's case against Trump, which stemmed from an encounter at a Manhattan luxury department store, the judge later said that the jury's decision was based on "the narrow, technical meaning" of rape in New York penal law and that, in his ----ysis, the verdict did not mean that Carroll "failed to prove that Mr. Trump raped' her as many people commonly understand the word rape.'"
While various states define rape in different ways, every state criminalizes oral, ----, and ------- sexual contact that is nonconsensual, according to Sandi Johnson, a senior legislative policy counsel at Rape, Abuse, & ------ National Network. Prior to its new law, New York defined penetration of the vagina or other bodily orifices with anything other than a penis as "sexual abuse" rather than "rape."
Many other states continue to place unwanted oral or ---- sexual contact in a category other than rape.
I hope that clears up the issue.
Yes, Trump's four years in office were just a horror - RIGHT???
#11 | Posted by MSgt
Trump was prevented by people like Kelly and others inside his adminstration from becoming the dictator he wanted to be. If there is another Trump adminstration, those guardrails will no longer be in place, either within the adminstration or outside of it. The Supreme Court's rulling in the Trump immunity case made sure of that.
Dirk Schwenk:threadreaderapp.com
In light of the new reporting that Tr u mp is a Hxtler supporter and outright fascist, I want to revisit Justice Roberts decision in Trump v. United States. A THREAD.
We all grew up in a country where it was flatly illegal for a POTUS to turn the military against the citizenry. There was never any question about that. It was a sure thing. That country is gone.
It has been repeatedly confirmed that Trump asked "his" generals to shoot protesters. And that they refused. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. Trump wants generals that are loyal, and if we put him in power, that is what he (and we) will get.
What changed? Roberts held that POTUS Article II powers cannot be limited or reviewed by any other branch of government. What are Art II powers? Commanding the Armed Forces and granting pardons are the Big 2.
Also included - APPOINTING SCOTUS JUSTICES and foreign policy.
SCOTUS has also found, and Roberts just vastly expanded, that firing people in executive agencies is a core Art. II function.
So Art. II gives POTUS the power to wield military force; pardon anyone; appoint SCOTUS justices, and fire anyone else. POTUS can institute a loyalty test and give military orders. DID CJ ROBERTS FIND ANY LIMITS TO THESE POWERS? No. It's unrestrained by courts or Congress.
So POTUS can order, without any review or restraint, military action against US citizens on US soil. And he can fire anyone that refuses. And he can pardon anyone that follows the order. And neither SCOTUS or Congress has any power to review or limit such actions.
SO LISTEN HERE EVERY LIVING SOUL. A vote for Trump is a vote for a person who wants to be a dictator. And if he wins, HE IS A DICTATOR ON DAY ONE. And there are no legal ways to stop him. None. Zero. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
Dirk out.
It is true that Congress can deny funding for the military. And if you think that will pose a barrier, well ha ha the jokes on you. Anyone opposing will be in the camps.
If these claims are not true, I hope someone like Et_Al will weigh in with the appropriate correction(s).
More Michelle: "I hope that you will forgive me if I'm a little angry that we are indifferent to Donald Trump's erratic behavior. His obvious mental decline, his history as a convicted felon, a known slumlord, a predator found liable for sexual abuse. All of this while we pick apart Kamala's answers from interviews that he doesn't even have the courage to do."