Mr. Trump is having a bad week in court. My favorite one is Georgia, so I’ve saved it for last, but you’ll want to make sure you read that far—or skip down to it if your end of the week attention span is short. Mar-a-Lago Today, ABC reported that a target letter was sent to an unidentified Trump Organization employee who had dealings at Mar-a-Lago. There wasn’t much more detail than that. But we know that the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida has continued working since the indictment against Trump and Nauta was returned. Prosecutors aren’t permitted to continue to use the grand jury to develop evidence after indictment, so this means something more had to be afoot. It’s entirely possible that it’s this (there was also some tantalizing reporting that prosecutors are interested in Trump properties in Florida beyond Mar-a-Lago).
Thanks for being there too - feels like mini-law school but is needed to digest the news.
I am beginning to believe that even the moderate Republicans are jumping on the tear-it-down wagon and throwing in with Trump because they all are seeing the math working against them. They are losing support to independents and democrats, the young and the non-traditional, and if they lose ground now, it may never be regained. There is desperation on both "sides" (divided we fall), and that is not a good thing. Fingers crossed for Jack Smith.
I appreciate the photos with fund-raising totals at the end - gave me the boost I need to enjoy the weekend. Enjoy yours too.
The GOP's slipping numbers explain why they are trying to disenfranchise so many of whom/who (help English majors) they consider "other" or "different" from them. On a side note, it's so far from being a good Christian that it boggles my mind, my Christian mind. It's also very sad to witness.
The objective case, "whom," is called for in your sentence as it is the object of the preposition "of." You could even delete the "of," and "whom" would still be correct ("...disenfranchise so many whom they consider...") -- it would be the object of the verb "consider." Or substitute "people" for "of whom."
Thanks for asking! Few people any more seem to care about using language correctly, and many even deprecate or aggressively insult those who do.
-- Your friendly on-line part-time pedant, English major, former English and journalism teacher, editor, and writer. ;-)
Thank you for the refresher in using who/whom. My mother was an English teacher, so I got by in school and at work by using whatever "sounded" right, always having heard correct grammer at home. Now, in my old age (81), I'm less sure and appreciate a lesson or two. :)
Yep! The tricky thing is when what looks like the object of a preposition is also the subject of a clause, but that is not the case here. (Consider: "I'll give the prize to whoever gets here first." (Signed: full-time copyeditor, occasional proofreader, writer, and former journalist. ;-) )
Good example. Two keys to that problem, as I see it: One is to recognize "whoever gets here first" as a dependent clause, that is, a group of words that has a subject and a verb and does not express a complete thought. "Whoever," the subject or nominative form in the who/whoever//whom/whomever panoply of relative pronouns, is the subject of the verb "gets," and that group of words if standing alone would be a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence.
The other is to further see the entire clause "whoever...first" as a noun clause that serves as the object of the preposition "to." In that functionality, "to" has no bearing on the individual word "whoever."
"This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"
I deal with this sort of thing so often that I'm not sure what steps I take -- they all happen in a *whoosh*. I'm guessing that I first identify the nearest verb and then figure out what the subject is. Just in general, who/whom prompts plenty of competent writers to overcorrect, usually using "whom" where "who" is correct.
Yeah, like the proverbial pony in the pile, there's always gotta be a base sentence, a subject and a verb and maybe a complement or two, in there somewhere. Sometimes I get so turned around that I have to ignore all the appositives, parentheticals, dependencies, digressions, and other distracting baggage that can get piled into a sentence, find that simple base or core, and sort things out from there.
I was seeing figuring out the "give the prize to whoever gets here first" example above as analogous to working out an algebraic or mathematical equation with parentheses within parentheses, when one has to solve first for the innermost bits and work outward from there. But I couldn't figure out how to explain that briefly and coherently, so I left that effort for another day.
I taught English in Egypt for several years before I retired, and I have a whole laundry list of English "errors" people commit every day, so I thank you for asking.
Right now what sets my teeth on edge is when people misuse "lay." I see it literally everywhere. Example: A person on the ground is lying there, not laying there. Laying is what you do to an object, such as laying a wreath on a grave.
Yeah, lie/lay misuse is discouragingly common. Even my own kids don't get it right, to my dismay and disappointment. They're not in lines of work that require polished, correct English all the time, but still...
Apart from the idea that many verbs require complements, or information to complete their meaning (for example, "lay"), I'm guessing the lie/lay confusion arises because the past tense of "lie" is "lay" and as schoolkids many people just never really learned the (admittedly irregular and potentially confusing) principal parts of lie and lay.
There are several words that are not used in the manner I was taught (all those years ago) but there are so many other issues "out there" cant take the time to dwell on them!
So agree about lie/lay. Even my very well (Jesuit)- educated daughter-in-law doesn't use the forms the way I was taught.
Speaking of which, have I detected a trend of using "regular" past-tense formation where an irregular form used to be common.For instances (in legal stuff): "He pleaded guilty" where "He pled guilty" is what we used to say (I think!) Is there anything in the AP Style Guide or somewhere about that?
Come to think of that, will we soon see
lie, lied, lied (for both going to bed and telling an untruth)
and lay, layed, layed.
That will be a sure sign the apocalypse is upon us.
Pleaded vs. pled: I got my grammatical knickers in a twist about this one a while back and looked it up. The short version is that guidance from various respected authorities (OED, Chicago, AP) differs but when in doubt the longer form (pleaded) is the safer choice.
Not to get into a grammatical gripefest (hey -- maybe there's a Substack blog waiting to happen!), but one of my pet peeves is the use of the conditional perfect where the past perfect is needed, as in if...then statements. For example, people will often say something like, "If I would have known, I would have helped" rather than, "If I had known,..." or "Had I known,..." (the "then" is implicit).
I do care. Yes. My undergrad was in accounting and my MFA in creative writing. No English basis to speak of. Isn't that terrible? But, you're right. I care about language. I normally rely on my editor. LOL.
So, thank you, friendly on-line part-time pedant, English major, former English and journalism teacher, editor and writer! :D
Really smart English is hawt (joke, sort of). It's wondrous to be able to continue to learn right up to the last hurrah (hurray? Huzzah???) But I digress. Thank you, please always share on anything I personlly type as I do not always KNOW I'm confused!! You're great.
I think the Swifties are donating. $5.00 or even $10.00 a whack. Bless Taylor Swift for speaking truth to power - and mentoring ALL of us - not just the Gen Z’s. She announces she is ‘involved’ in politics and encourages her tribe to be so as well. I’ve never listen to even one of her songs - but I’m one of her biggest fans:)) I adore her integrity.
she's actually quite good. I always respect artists who write their own music as most folks can be trained to sing. she's extremely influential, and she has loads of fans.
Reading (& rereading) the January 6 section of your newsletter, and I can’t help but ponder how many of the MAGA republicans in congress (House & Senate) are potential targets in Smith’s investigation of 1/6. The weaponization committee members for sure. Thoughts on this Joyce??
A "conspiracy" theory: Perhaps Smith's investigation is the real reason for that committee. So when the U.S. Marshals come for Gym and the rest. "See what did we tell you."
But I keep thinking of the theme from "Cops"
"Bad boys, bad boys whatcha gonna do? Whatcha you gonna do when they come for you?"
LOL Michael . So, somewhere along the lines , the number of 137 springs hope eternal.
It still amazes me that people running for and then elected can fall victim to such a scheme but even more surprising collude to further a first ever such bold faced lie , law breaking , career ending complicity. To boot by a know con man!
I think the company they keep has a lot to do with it. We tend to associate groupthink with the "best and the brightest" of the Kennedy-Johnson era, but it also happens to the worst and the dullest.
The supposed numbers tally in about 30+ million of the ‘thems’, but along the path of destruction planned and partially executed is the many who comply..to save their job (despite being hired for presumed integrity) . That’s the base?
That’s a fair amount of rebel rousers...where in the framework of the Republican Party is the game plan that includes the snuggling up to Putins and the like...do they have any credible record other than the window treatments if you don’t follow the leader...and btw..isn’t that real similar to TFG’s tactics/MO/past ( and verbatim future) action?
All those in agreement , get your writing hats on and forward this fair warning to those still on the fence or teetering.
I LOVE the eloquence you writers can muster up.
It might just whittle those projected numbers down more....we heard they have diminished .
Doubtless Jordan's Committee and Subcommittee are using their office to set the table for defense of any charges that might come down. That is, so they will say "See, we told you before: it's more weaponization."
Well yes, DOJ is weaponized against you ( name your favorite seditionist). DOJ is our weapon against criminals. And you are a criminal. If the shoe fits…
I have been waiting for confirmation that Smith is indeed investigating those members of Congress who participated in Jan. 6 planning. Please, please, please!
I was just heading to bed when your newsletter came through. Now, I'm wide awake. Great info within. Thanks for your analysis and the hope I feel--that justice will be served--when I read it.
I'm wide awake now too with butterflies in my tummy, wanting to know how it will all turn out. Thanks to Joyce, I at least understand what I'm waiting for.
Thanks for the comprehensive update of all things TFG. It’s a great way to begin the weekend and dream of democracy in action. Peace and continued prayers for our country☮️🙏🏼
Thank you, Ms Vance, great news and analysis. I particularly like your description of Trump as a toddler throwing blocks when he is facing discipline. Trump has always perceived himself as some sort of superior individual to be lauded. Instead of being viewed for what his is, a person of ordinary intellect who shines as a ham actor and conman.
Because of Kushner saying that trump believed he won, some media this week has said that Trump at first believed he lost but was seduced by the conspiracy theories of Rudy, Powell, etc. - so that he finally started denying that he lost. Trump is a predatory criminal that will always use any idea that he thinks might have a chance of helping him, knowing full well it’s not true. People never sway his mind or entice him to believe what they may believe. As a career criminal facing prison be will say and do anything to not be convicted. That’s the key to it all. Every word he utters and action he takes is minute by minute aimed at avoiding prison.
Jared's opinion isn't worth the onion skin upon which it is written. He is not a credible witness, IMO. Rather, he's a Trump Mafia bought-and-paid-for sycophant (Qatar $$$ and Saudi $$$$$$$$$).
This makes so much sense - initially knowing that he’d lost, but easily persuaded otherwise by Giuliani et al because of course that’s the “reality” he wanted.
And I remember how little press coverage Trump's assertion got, both in 2016 and in 2020.
He knew he lost in 2020 but it blew his authoritarian profiteering plans all to hell, so he thought he could burn it all down, either in revenge or a belief that he could actually pull off a coup.
Although the persons attending at the many waypoints along the web as the Trump election’s defrauding conspiracies were hatched --before Election Day, before Trump had even lost to Biden--Trump’s cartoonish villains, Rudy, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Sydney Powell, Stephen Miller, John Eastman, Flynn, and his brother were stirring in the Dark Arts of politics. Undoubtedly, the darkest.
Agree with exactly how you said it; Trump is a predatorial criminal. The aforementioned gang of liars, smart and crafty delusional con artists, how could they have resisted the chance Trump’s super-narcissistic ego offered them?
Their goals of taking over America were fueled by cult followers and funded by American oligarchs and Trump’s emotionally contorted base --it was impossible for Uber-Grifters like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon to not give it their all.
The Feds are on to them and I see no politically functional Team B of political svengalis remaining as players in the aftermath of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictments.
From Georgia to Florida to Arizona, to the Willard Hotel Warroom, the special counsel is twisting Trump’s co-conspirators and turning them into Jack Smith co-operators.
I agree with you Bess- and woild add that at first Trump really never thought he would win in 2016- he was just running to increase his brand profile and take advantage of the opportunity to grift- but the evil genius underling Bannon did show crime boss trump a valuable truth that Trump immediately grasped as huge disaffected crowds of white working class folks started showing up at his rallies. Bannon showed the ever ready criminal boss trump that a whole demographic of white working class folks in crucial states had been alienated from the Democratic Party by decades of neglect by Dems who mainly focused away from them on the cultural issues that trump could exploit. Obama’s calling them “those people who only love their guns and religion” and Hillary calling them a “basket of deplorables” helped mobilize that crucial demographic. trump’s faux populism conned them into believing someone finally was really caring about their struggles. Of course Trump feeds on that white working class emotional fear and pain for his own ends and masterfully calls it forth via constant fear mongering and victim mentality persecutory manipulation. I believe he has about a 50 percent chance of beating Biden in 2024 if trials aren’t held in time to prove his criminality.
What is keep remembering is that Kushner said not that tfg believed he had won but that he (Kushner) "had the impression" that tfg believed he had won. To me, having "an impression" is far weaker than having "an opinion", nor is "believed" he had won, none of which carry any weight in court.
I'd like to think that the SC has additional testimony beyond the ones we've heard of so far that tfg clearly understood he had lost when he expressed his disbelief that he had lost to Biden.
Life long career criminal bosses such as trump who have avoided ever being convicted of their crimes do so by not being swayed by the ideas or persuasion of their underlings that might put the boss at risk. If subordinate’s ideas appear to have value to the boss in his constant calculus about what might increase or decrease his power, he may use those ideas- but he hasn’t gained and kept the power of being boss and avoided prison for decades by being seduced, duped, persuaded or made vulnerable by the opinions of his minions.
I hope tfg is having as many sleepless nights as he's caused. (I had to look up what 'tfg' meant a while back. I had been unaware that the 'f' stood for 'former'....)
When my friends and I discussed today's developments in Georgia, we all said we couldn't wait to hear what you had to say about it. It was worth waiting up for. Thank you!
Thank you for this fascinating update(s)! I love the way you think--brilliant and erudite, a joy to read, and to see when you are on MSNBC. I can even follow everything you discuss because you write clearly and concisely, and with great humor too. Bravo, Joyce! What's not to love about those adorable and loving chickens? You seem to be in heaven when you are with them...But I'm dying to know how you ended up in Alabama? Aren't you from New York?
Sorry to be so nosy! I feel like I know you from your easy style of communicating to a grateful audience. It's a huge gift to all of us in these trying times.
Thanks for being there too - feels like mini-law school but is needed to digest the news.
I am beginning to believe that even the moderate Republicans are jumping on the tear-it-down wagon and throwing in with Trump because they all are seeing the math working against them. They are losing support to independents and democrats, the young and the non-traditional, and if they lose ground now, it may never be regained. There is desperation on both "sides" (divided we fall), and that is not a good thing. Fingers crossed for Jack Smith.
I appreciate the photos with fund-raising totals at the end - gave me the boost I need to enjoy the weekend. Enjoy yours too.
The GOP's slipping numbers explain why they are trying to disenfranchise so many of whom/who (help English majors) they consider "other" or "different" from them. On a side note, it's so far from being a good Christian that it boggles my mind, my Christian mind. It's also very sad to witness.
Since you asked: whom.
The objective case, "whom," is called for in your sentence as it is the object of the preposition "of." You could even delete the "of," and "whom" would still be correct ("...disenfranchise so many whom they consider...") -- it would be the object of the verb "consider." Or substitute "people" for "of whom."
Thanks for asking! Few people any more seem to care about using language correctly, and many even deprecate or aggressively insult those who do.
-- Your friendly on-line part-time pedant, English major, former English and journalism teacher, editor, and writer. ;-)
Thank you for the refresher in using who/whom. My mother was an English teacher, so I got by in school and at work by using whatever "sounded" right, always having heard correct grammer at home. Now, in my old age (81), I'm less sure and appreciate a lesson or two. :)
Yep! The tricky thing is when what looks like the object of a preposition is also the subject of a clause, but that is not the case here. (Consider: "I'll give the prize to whoever gets here first." (Signed: full-time copyeditor, occasional proofreader, writer, and former journalist. ;-) )
Good example. Two keys to that problem, as I see it: One is to recognize "whoever gets here first" as a dependent clause, that is, a group of words that has a subject and a verb and does not express a complete thought. "Whoever," the subject or nominative form in the who/whoever//whom/whomever panoply of relative pronouns, is the subject of the verb "gets," and that group of words if standing alone would be a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence.
The other is to further see the entire clause "whoever...first" as a noun clause that serves as the object of the preposition "to." In that functionality, "to" has no bearing on the individual word "whoever."
"This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"
- Winston Churchill
😉
How in the world do people learn English as a second language? I have so much respect for those who do.
I deal with this sort of thing so often that I'm not sure what steps I take -- they all happen in a *whoosh*. I'm guessing that I first identify the nearest verb and then figure out what the subject is. Just in general, who/whom prompts plenty of competent writers to overcorrect, usually using "whom" where "who" is correct.
Yeah, like the proverbial pony in the pile, there's always gotta be a base sentence, a subject and a verb and maybe a complement or two, in there somewhere. Sometimes I get so turned around that I have to ignore all the appositives, parentheticals, dependencies, digressions, and other distracting baggage that can get piled into a sentence, find that simple base or core, and sort things out from there.
I was seeing figuring out the "give the prize to whoever gets here first" example above as analogous to working out an algebraic or mathematical equation with parentheses within parentheses, when one has to solve first for the innermost bits and work outward from there. But I couldn't figure out how to explain that briefly and coherently, so I left that effort for another day.
My eyes glazed over!!! LOLOL. Talk to me with numbers and characterization and we're good to go. :D
I always say if you can substitute a “him” then it’s a whom-if you can substitute a “he”, then it’s a who... I still get it wrong lol
I tend to just rewrite it to get rid of the problem.
See. You're too smart.
Oh, that's a great idea! Thanks for the tip.
I taught English in Egypt for several years before I retired, and I have a whole laundry list of English "errors" people commit every day, so I thank you for asking.
Right now what sets my teeth on edge is when people misuse "lay." I see it literally everywhere. Example: A person on the ground is lying there, not laying there. Laying is what you do to an object, such as laying a wreath on a grave.
When I was a kid and would use ‘lay’ incorrectly, my older brother would chide me saying, “Only chickens lay!”
Yeah, lie/lay misuse is discouragingly common. Even my own kids don't get it right, to my dismay and disappointment. They're not in lines of work that require polished, correct English all the time, but still...
Apart from the idea that many verbs require complements, or information to complete their meaning (for example, "lay"), I'm guessing the lie/lay confusion arises because the past tense of "lie" is "lay" and as schoolkids many people just never really learned the (admittedly irregular and potentially confusing) principal parts of lie and lay.
Again, my editor catches all my "lays" and "lies." :D She's a saint.
There are several words that are not used in the manner I was taught (all those years ago) but there are so many other issues "out there" cant take the time to dwell on them!
So agree about lie/lay. Even my very well (Jesuit)- educated daughter-in-law doesn't use the forms the way I was taught.
Speaking of which, have I detected a trend of using "regular" past-tense formation where an irregular form used to be common.For instances (in legal stuff): "He pleaded guilty" where "He pled guilty" is what we used to say (I think!) Is there anything in the AP Style Guide or somewhere about that?
Come to think of that, will we soon see
lie, lied, lied (for both going to bed and telling an untruth)
and lay, layed, layed.
That will be a sure sign the apocalypse is upon us.
Pleaded vs. pled: I got my grammatical knickers in a twist about this one a while back and looked it up. The short version is that guidance from various respected authorities (OED, Chicago, AP) differs but when in doubt the longer form (pleaded) is the safer choice.
Not to get into a grammatical gripefest (hey -- maybe there's a Substack blog waiting to happen!), but one of my pet peeves is the use of the conditional perfect where the past perfect is needed, as in if...then statements. For example, people will often say something like, "If I would have known, I would have helped" rather than, "If I had known,..." or "Had I known,..." (the "then" is implicit).
Anyone else notice this, or is it just me?
I do care. Yes. My undergrad was in accounting and my MFA in creative writing. No English basis to speak of. Isn't that terrible? But, you're right. I care about language. I normally rely on my editor. LOL.
So, thank you, friendly on-line part-time pedant, English major, former English and journalism teacher, editor and writer! :D
Really smart English is hawt (joke, sort of). It's wondrous to be able to continue to learn right up to the last hurrah (hurray? Huzzah???) But I digress. Thank you, please always share on anything I personlly type as I do not always KNOW I'm confused!! You're great.
What I learned was if one would say she/he/they then say who. If one would say her/him/them then say whom.
I can't believe I've made it through this many decades without knowing this. LOL. :D
It’s about money and power. That’s it. No issues to support either. It’s maddening and ludicrous and detrimental to all we hold dear.
Whom
Whom
Thank you. :)
I love that Biden campaign fundraising substantially exceeds the *total* of that raised by tfg and "that other guy"!
I think the Swifties are donating. $5.00 or even $10.00 a whack. Bless Taylor Swift for speaking truth to power - and mentoring ALL of us - not just the Gen Z’s. She announces she is ‘involved’ in politics and encourages her tribe to be so as well. I’ve never listen to even one of her songs - but I’m one of her biggest fans:)) I adore her integrity.
Correction: *….never ‘listened’ to even one of her songs
she's actually quite good. I always respect artists who write their own music as most folks can be trained to sing. she's extremely influential, and she has loads of fans.
It’s incredibly positive and evidence of things to come🇺🇸
There is no such thing as a "moderate republican." You're either for humanity or against it.
Reading (& rereading) the January 6 section of your newsletter, and I can’t help but ponder how many of the MAGA republicans in congress (House & Senate) are potential targets in Smith’s investigation of 1/6. The weaponization committee members for sure. Thoughts on this Joyce??
A "conspiracy" theory: Perhaps Smith's investigation is the real reason for that committee. So when the U.S. Marshals come for Gym and the rest. "See what did we tell you."
But I keep thinking of the theme from "Cops"
"Bad boys, bad boys whatcha gonna do? Whatcha you gonna do when they come for you?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBD8M3WFrAw
Perhaps ‘Gym and the rest’ be restated as ‘Gym and the rats”!
LOL Michael . So, somewhere along the lines , the number of 137 springs hope eternal.
It still amazes me that people running for and then elected can fall victim to such a scheme but even more surprising collude to further a first ever such bold faced lie , law breaking , career ending complicity. To boot by a know con man!
I think the company they keep has a lot to do with it. We tend to associate groupthink with the "best and the brightest" of the Kennedy-Johnson era, but it also happens to the worst and the dullest.
The supposed numbers tally in about 30+ million of the ‘thems’, but along the path of destruction planned and partially executed is the many who comply..to save their job (despite being hired for presumed integrity) . That’s the base?
That’s a fair amount of rebel rousers...where in the framework of the Republican Party is the game plan that includes the snuggling up to Putins and the like...do they have any credible record other than the window treatments if you don’t follow the leader...and btw..isn’t that real similar to TFG’s tactics/MO/past ( and verbatim future) action?
All those in agreement , get your writing hats on and forward this fair warning to those still on the fence or teetering.
I LOVE the eloquence you writers can muster up.
It might just whittle those projected numbers down more....we heard they have diminished .
Thanks
💙VOTE💙
Sure hope they are look at House co-conspirators. It’s rich that Gym frivolously subpoenas people while he never should up for his.
All should ignore those subpoenas.
Are you referring to Jim Jordan?
Gym, McCarthy, Biggs and Peters were referred to DOJ for ignoring subpoenas.
T
Don’t recall full list of those did not appear but weren’t referred to DOJ
😏
I sure hope so!
Doubtless Jordan's Committee and Subcommittee are using their office to set the table for defense of any charges that might come down. That is, so they will say "See, we told you before: it's more weaponization."
Well yes, DOJ is weaponized against you ( name your favorite seditionist). DOJ is our weapon against criminals. And you are a criminal. If the shoe fits…
I have been waiting for confirmation that Smith is indeed investigating those members of Congress who participated in Jan. 6 planning. Please, please, please!
Indeed, echo that.
Great observation. The entire Maga crowd in the House as well and what about McCarthy.as well.
One can only hope!
I was just heading to bed when your newsletter came through. Now, I'm wide awake. Great info within. Thanks for your analysis and the hope I feel--that justice will be served--when I read it.
I'm wide awake now too with butterflies in my tummy, wanting to know how it will all turn out. Thanks to Joyce, I at least understand what I'm waiting for.
Same here. I wake up everyday praying for another indictment and handcuffs and justice. :)
I always save these for the morning for just that reason.
Goes well with coffee
So smart. :)
Thanks for the comprehensive update of all things TFG. It’s a great way to begin the weekend and dream of democracy in action. Peace and continued prayers for our country☮️🙏🏼
Thank you, Ms Vance, great news and analysis. I particularly like your description of Trump as a toddler throwing blocks when he is facing discipline. Trump has always perceived himself as some sort of superior individual to be lauded. Instead of being viewed for what his is, a person of ordinary intellect who shines as a ham actor and conman.
Because of Kushner saying that trump believed he won, some media this week has said that Trump at first believed he lost but was seduced by the conspiracy theories of Rudy, Powell, etc. - so that he finally started denying that he lost. Trump is a predatory criminal that will always use any idea that he thinks might have a chance of helping him, knowing full well it’s not true. People never sway his mind or entice him to believe what they may believe. As a career criminal facing prison be will say and do anything to not be convicted. That’s the key to it all. Every word he utters and action he takes is minute by minute aimed at avoiding prison.
Jared's opinion isn't worth the onion skin upon which it is written. He is not a credible witness, IMO. Rather, he's a Trump Mafia bought-and-paid-for sycophant (Qatar $$$ and Saudi $$$$$$$$$).
This makes so much sense - initially knowing that he’d lost, but easily persuaded otherwise by Giuliani et al because of course that’s the “reality” he wanted.
Actually, Trump said on several occasions, even during the 2016 election, that if he lost he would claim the election was "rigged." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/25/donald-trump-rigged-election-talk-fears-274477
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512424-trump-the-only-way-we-are-going-to-lose-this-election-is-if-the/
You’re right. And Bannon amplified it. Ugh.
And I remember how little press coverage Trump's assertion got, both in 2016 and in 2020.
He knew he lost in 2020 but it blew his authoritarian profiteering plans all to hell, so he thought he could burn it all down, either in revenge or a belief that he could actually pull off a coup.
Everyone knows Jared is lying to save face with Ivanka’s father 45.
Absolutely!
Hello, Dr. Cornwall,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
Although the persons attending at the many waypoints along the web as the Trump election’s defrauding conspiracies were hatched --before Election Day, before Trump had even lost to Biden--Trump’s cartoonish villains, Rudy, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Sydney Powell, Stephen Miller, John Eastman, Flynn, and his brother were stirring in the Dark Arts of politics. Undoubtedly, the darkest.
Agree with exactly how you said it; Trump is a predatorial criminal. The aforementioned gang of liars, smart and crafty delusional con artists, how could they have resisted the chance Trump’s super-narcissistic ego offered them?
Their goals of taking over America were fueled by cult followers and funded by American oligarchs and Trump’s emotionally contorted base --it was impossible for Uber-Grifters like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon to not give it their all.
The Feds are on to them and I see no politically functional Team B of political svengalis remaining as players in the aftermath of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictments.
From Georgia to Florida to Arizona, to the Willard Hotel Warroom, the special counsel is twisting Trump’s co-conspirators and turning them into Jack Smith co-operators.
I agree with you Bess- and woild add that at first Trump really never thought he would win in 2016- he was just running to increase his brand profile and take advantage of the opportunity to grift- but the evil genius underling Bannon did show crime boss trump a valuable truth that Trump immediately grasped as huge disaffected crowds of white working class folks started showing up at his rallies. Bannon showed the ever ready criminal boss trump that a whole demographic of white working class folks in crucial states had been alienated from the Democratic Party by decades of neglect by Dems who mainly focused away from them on the cultural issues that trump could exploit. Obama’s calling them “those people who only love their guns and religion” and Hillary calling them a “basket of deplorables” helped mobilize that crucial demographic. trump’s faux populism conned them into believing someone finally was really caring about their struggles. Of course Trump feeds on that white working class emotional fear and pain for his own ends and masterfully calls it forth via constant fear mongering and victim mentality persecutory manipulation. I believe he has about a 50 percent chance of beating Biden in 2024 if trials aren’t held in time to prove his criminality.
What is keep remembering is that Kushner said not that tfg believed he had won but that he (Kushner) "had the impression" that tfg believed he had won. To me, having "an impression" is far weaker than having "an opinion", nor is "believed" he had won, none of which carry any weight in court.
I'd like to think that the SC has additional testimony beyond the ones we've heard of so far that tfg clearly understood he had lost when he expressed his disbelief that he had lost to Biden.
Trump is cunning but there are many, many instances where his opinion was swayed by persuasion.
Life long career criminal bosses such as trump who have avoided ever being convicted of their crimes do so by not being swayed by the ideas or persuasion of their underlings that might put the boss at risk. If subordinate’s ideas appear to have value to the boss in his constant calculus about what might increase or decrease his power, he may use those ideas- but he hasn’t gained and kept the power of being boss and avoided prison for decades by being seduced, duped, persuaded or made vulnerable by the opinions of his minions.
Actually, I thought it was because he lied his head off and had enough money to buy his way out of accountability.
He's a weak-minded narcissist.
Confirmation bias is the barrier to quality thinking in such a one.
Clever propagandists prey on this, either by natural or artificial intelligence.
He manipulated or agreed with those he thought vulnerable. He always wanted the upper hand. It was a mask of intention.
I hope tfg is having as many sleepless nights as he's caused. (I had to look up what 'tfg' meant a while back. I had been unaware that the 'f' stood for 'former'....)
🤣🤣🤣
"tfg" is not how I refer to this humanoid.
"subhuman"
"failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings" - from Merriam-Webster.
Me too!! Finally figured it out!!
I thought it was the other f word. So disappointed 😞. However, I may be too old to change!
Now, see? I mistook the F as my favorite universal adjective. Good to know. Thanks for the edification. :)
🤣
My wife and I am sure that we are not alone, in hoping that you can and will re-use this week's title frequently in coming months.
Perhaps it will be necessary for you to start a numbering system?
Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please.
My prayers nightly.
Right?
Georgia on my mind ....
When my friends and I discussed today's developments in Georgia, we all said we couldn't wait to hear what you had to say about it. It was worth waiting up for. Thank you!
Thank you Joyce for really helping us understand the issues, processes and possibilities.
You are the best After a disappointing day of news about the impact on the apparently legal discrimination of the LGBTQ people I feel better. Thanks
This has been my kind of week in the matters you've reviewed! Thanks, Joyce. (And I'm not the least surprised at the $$$ raised! You rock, Joe!!!)
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Love this good bad news, Joyce! Many, many thanks.
Thank you for this fascinating update(s)! I love the way you think--brilliant and erudite, a joy to read, and to see when you are on MSNBC. I can even follow everything you discuss because you write clearly and concisely, and with great humor too. Bravo, Joyce! What's not to love about those adorable and loving chickens? You seem to be in heaven when you are with them...But I'm dying to know how you ended up in Alabama? Aren't you from New York?
Sorry to be so nosy! I feel like I know you from your easy style of communicating to a grateful audience. It's a huge gift to all of us in these trying times.