Trump’s Idiot Lawyer Just Admitted He May Be Guilty of Insurrection

3 years ago by MicroWave to c/politics

Donald Trump keeps hiring the very best.

One of Donald Trump’s lawyers appeared to accidentally admit that the former president may have engaged in insurrection.

Christina Bobb, a vocal 2020 election denier, tried to argue Tuesday night that voters should be able to elect anyone they want for president.

“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”

Bobb seems to be arguing that even an insurrectionist should be allowed to run the country, which could be seen as an admission of guilt.

load all comments
imposedsensation 96 points 3 years ago

Here to say that the title is factually inaccurate. The argument being made is a hypothetical generalization and does nothing of the sort. Trump is definitely guilty of insurrection, but the editors of the New Republic are guilty of clickbait and malpractice. Shame!

path: 0 6399050, hotness: undefined, score: 96, children: 6
modifier 10 points 3 years ago

Yeah that was garbage. She's an idiot but that statement is an admission of guilt in the same way that SpaceX makes boats.

path: 0 6399050 6399563, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 2
Rivalarrival 10 points 3 years ago path: 0 6399050 6399563 6400835, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1
stoly 2 points 3 years ago

Rhetorically speaking, however, you want to limit where the conversation goes. In a debate or, perhaps, a philosophy paper, you might want to head off any avenues of argument before your opponent has a chance to bring them up. Here, just saying it raises the very question from a rhetorical standpoint and creates doubt in those listening.

So you're completely right. At the same time, this was a bad move by the lawyer unless their new tactic is to change the narrative to "insurrection doesn't' matter anyway amirite?".

path: 0 6399050 6404221, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
theneverfox 1 point 3 years ago

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they're explicitly saying... I feel like there's an equally clickbaity title that could've also been accurate along those lines

path: 0 6399050 6404221 6413424, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
half_built_pyramids 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 6399050 6399215, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
politics
politics

@lemmy.world

login for more options
31387
33984
9405

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

go to feed...