There is a VERY concerted effort to redefine political violence as speech -- it makes up ~half of Trump's defense so far in the DC January 6 trial (though he only belatedly framed a big part of it).Is this effort directed at the court? Or at MAGA?
If the latter: who cares? Seriously. Trump is going to blather, bluster and brag until the day he dies. That, alone, will silence him. So what good does it do to worry about every new thing he says? Or every old thing, for that matter?
If he’s trying it in court, the only question is: is the court that stupid? Loose Cannon probably is (the woman should just resign from the bench she is so obviously unfit for). Chutkan? Not likely. As the DOJ pointed out, Trump’s argument to put cameras in the courtroom doesn’t present any argument based in law. Which isn’t really radically different from the rest of their arguments. So his arguments about protected speech (the legal term of art for what is covered by the First Amendment) don’t really go anywhere. They don’t delay the trial, they don’t provide grounds for appeal, they don’t draw the interest of the Supremes. They just waste the money Trump raises, and annoy the judge.
Trump tried to redefine violence as political speech on J6. The result was several hundred people arrested. None of them were acquitted in the basis of that “defense,” and Trump’s “concerted efforts” never reached beyond the MAGA faithful. Who really aren’t too much worth worrying about.
There is a very concerted effort to worry about everything Trump says; but he says the same old thing over and over and over again.
Maybe we should redefine Trump’s political speech instead.
At least the Washington Post has started to pay attention to that. The NYT is still busy “honoring” Trump so much even Stephen Miller likes it. “Objective journalism” is neither.
No comments:
Post a Comment