The louder the mouth, the less likely the truth. -- Pug Mahoney
Politicians face a decision.
If Trump loyalists win in the coming election and gain control of Congress, investigation of the former president's activities before and after the previous election will likely end. If they do not win control, the probe will continue.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department must decide whether to continue its probe. Separately, there are state investigations under way. Will they continue, despite Trump's domination at the federal level? Will the Supreme Court assert its independence, and will its Trump-appointed justices rule against his appeals?
Some of these issues could be settled -- or at least voters will give some indication of their preference -- on Election Day.
The next question follows that indication. Will Congress adopt voter suggestions and reinstall Trumpian policies and thus forgive him of all accusations of wrongdoing? Or not?
But will prosecutors follow that lead?
Time was, the word "liar" was never used by news broadcasters or print journalists. Now, that word is used routinely, every day, by both commentators and by neutral reporters.
Reason: The perpetrators of untruths became so blatant, so obvious, so uncaring, and his followers so loyal that journalists had to follow their basic principles and report what was happening, including the fact that so many lies are being told.
The problem then becomes how to overcome the total loyalty of his followers -- his true believers -- and convince them of the truth.
Election Day will bring a clue as to what will happen in America in the coming months. If Trumpians lose, they will keep insisting that the vote count was "rigged" against them, and that they really did win, despite all evidence to the contrary.
But if they do win, how will the public know they did not do the rigging, as a way to guarantee results in their favor?
Evidence is building and being publicized that's what happened in 2016. Trump lost the popular vote, but became president as his followers manipulated (rigged) the electoral college vote to enable him to take office.
Four years later, the chant of "rigging" began long before Election Day, despite the historic reality that many incumbents are often re-elected easily.
What if he had been re-elected? Would that have been proof that he did the rigging? His managers have been recorded before Election Day as saying how they would arrange the vote count to guarantee his re-election.
If this is not "rigging," what is?
It's an interesting play on words, to accuse the opposition of cheating, even as they themselves cheat.
Politicians face a decision.
If Trump loyalists win in the coming election and gain control of Congress, investigation of the former president's activities before and after the previous election will likely end. If they do not win control, the probe will continue.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department must decide whether to continue its probe. Separately, there are state investigations under way. Will they continue, despite Trump's domination at the federal level? Will the Supreme Court assert its independence, and will its Trump-appointed justices rule against his appeals?
Some of these issues could be settled -- or at least voters will give some indication of their preference -- on Election Day.
The next question follows that indication. Will Congress adopt voter suggestions and reinstall Trumpian policies and thus forgive him of all accusations of wrongdoing? Or not?
But will prosecutors follow that lead?
Time was, the word "liar" was never used by news broadcasters or print journalists. Now, that word is used routinely, every day, by both commentators and by neutral reporters.
Reason: The perpetrators of untruths became so blatant, so obvious, so uncaring, and his followers so loyal that journalists had to follow their basic principles and report what was happening, including the fact that so many lies are being told.
The problem then becomes how to overcome the total loyalty of his followers -- his true believers -- and convince them of the truth.
Election Day will bring a clue as to what will happen in America in the coming months. If Trumpians lose, they will keep insisting that the vote count was "rigged" against them, and that they really did win, despite all evidence to the contrary.
But if they do win, how will the public know they did not do the rigging, as a way to guarantee results in their favor?
Evidence is building and being publicized that's what happened in 2016. Trump lost the popular vote, but became president as his followers manipulated (rigged) the electoral college vote to enable him to take office.
Four years later, the chant of "rigging" began long before Election Day, despite the historic reality that many incumbents are often re-elected easily.
What if he had been re-elected? Would that have been proof that he did the rigging? His managers have been recorded before Election Day as saying how they would arrange the vote count to guarantee his re-election.
If this is not "rigging," what is?
It's an interesting play on words, to accuse the opposition of cheating, even as they themselves cheat.
No comments:
Post a Comment