Trump has sought to spin around concerns about his authoritarian instincts by accusing Biden of acting like a dictator or undermining democracy. He has repeatedly accused Biden of spearheading political prosecutions, though there is no evidence of White House involvement in the four criminal cases against Trump.
This has become a favorite locution since the 2020 election, about which we were endlessly told that there was "no evidence" of fraud or bad practices. In fact there is nearly endless evidence about it; what there wasn't was a formal inquiry that could turn evidence into proof. This is because courts resolved questions on issues like standing or timing, avoiding evidentiary hearings. But we never had proof that Saddam stole his 97% victories either; we just had evidence, evidence of exactly the same kind as we have about 2020.
As for these trials, there is also evidence that the Biden administration is involved.
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating a top prosecutor on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Trump for his past work as a senior Justice Department official during the Biden administration. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is demanding that Attorney General Merrick Garland turn over records related to the employment of Bragg prosecutor Matthew Colangelo amid a "perception" of coordination.
The Post knows about this, because they wrote a story claiming to debunk what they described as a "theory."
Among them: the idea that President Biden’s Justice Department was involved in the successful Manhattan criminal prosecution of Trump. (Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts last week.) Trump has long blamed Biden for this prosecution, without any evidence.
The evidence that Garland didn't dispatch him to assist is, by the way, that Garland denies it. Of course you should believe the word of a public servant like Garland, or any FBI or ATF agent for that matter. So there's no evidence for the 'theory,' but Garland's denial is firm evidence.
It's science, you know. Political science.
It is an infuriatingly deceitful and convenient definition of evidence, yes. When actual evidence for wrongdoing is found, such as the disinformation about Hunter Biden or the abuse of power in by several agencies in the investigations of Trump, it is rapidly sequestered, so that they can continue to claim the rest in pure. They then make sure the discovered evidence is not mentioned again.
ReplyDeleteThey do it so naturally at this point that I wonder how aware of it they are. A few are definitely quite calculating, but many others are simply repeating what they have been told, which has been presented to them in a way that makes them think they arrived at the conclusion independently.
Speaking of Political Science...my college poly sci professor explained the difference between Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism:
ReplyDeleteWith Authoritarianism, the government is run in a top-down manner and acts to suppress any influence on policy by unapproved people.
With Totalitarianism, the government also acts to control all aspects of society, including those that were once the domain of families, churches, voluntary organizations, etc.
Pretty clear to me that the Biden admin, and the dominant group in the Democrat Party (and in media & academia) that it represents, is quite Authoritarian in its policies, but also have strong leanings in the direction of Totalitarianism.
Upon Further Review, I think the phrase No Evidence often means "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
ReplyDelete"I know nothink, I see nothink"
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite Alinsky Nuuuz writing devices, always used to add some gravitas to a massive lie that's about to be foisted on the public is;
ReplyDelete"According to past and present government officials in a position to know but who wish to remain anonymous..."
...there is a 99.9% probability that what follows those beginning words is going to be pure, unverified bullshit ;-)
nmewn
"According to past and present government officials in a position to know but who wish to remain anonymous..."
ReplyDeleteJournalist: "It's claimed that [most improbable rumor circulating], would you say there's any truth to it?"
Favorable 'source': "You may very well think so, but of course I can't possibly comment. "
Headline: Officials Refuse to Deny Charges!
And...they never name the...'official'...in either case.
ReplyDeleteSo in my view, either the allegation by the 'official' is libelous and/or slanderous (thus why they would prefer to remain in the shadows as, anonymous or they will be sued in court)...or...its complete and utter BS made up by an Alinsky Nuuz reporter or outlet to drive views/revenue.
I am old school as I suspect most people still are everywhere.
If one has the balls to make an allegation they should be able stand by it like a man (or woman) & not say...
Don't quote me on that!
To me all that means is, it's either an outright lie (by the anon or the reporter) or neither have any proof of their allegation and both should have stayed quiet until they did have the proof.
But I'm pretty sure what it is ;-)
nmewn