The Biggest Trump Indictment
The one we've all been waiting for.
As Steven Taylor noted yesterday afternoon, former President Donald Trump has been indicted on multiple charges for his conspiracy to steal the 2020 election. While this has been long anticipated, it’s almost certainly the most serious of the multiple criminal indictments he’s under.
NYT chief White House correspondent Peter Baker argues “Trump’s Case Has Broad Implications for American Democracy.”
What makes the indictment against Donald J. Trump on Tuesday so breathtaking is not that it is the first time a president has been charged with a crime or even the second. Mr. Trump already holds those records. But as serious as hush money and classified documents may be, this third indictment in four months gets to the heart of the matter, the issue that will define the future of American democracy.
At the core of the United States of America v. Donald J. Trump is no less than the viability of the system constructed during that summer in Philadelphia. Can a sitting president spread lies about an election and try to employ the authority of the government to overturn the will of the voters without consequence? The question would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, but the Trump case raises the kind of specter more familiar in countries with histories of coups and juntas and dictators.
In effect, Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought the case, charged Mr. Trump with one of the most sensational frauds in the history of the United States, one “fueled by lies” and animated by the basest of motives, the thirst for power.
In a 45-page, four-count indictment, Mr. Smith dispensed with the notion that Mr. Trump believed his claims of election fraud. “The defendant knew that they were false,” it said, and made them anyway to “create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”
[…]
For all of the many, many allegations made against him on all sorts of subjects during his time on the public stage, everything else feels small by comparison. Unlike the indictment by New York State for allegedly covering up a payment to a porn actress and Mr. Smith’s previous indictment for allegedly jeopardizing national secrets after leaving the White House, the new charges are the first to deal with actions taken by a president while in office.
While he failed to keep his grip on power, Mr. Trump has undermined the credibility of elections in the United States by persuading three in 10 Americans that the 2020 election was somehow stolen from him, even though it was not and many of his own advisers and family members know it was not.
The Atlantic‘s Tom Nichols, like myself a #NeverTrump guy from the beginning, says “This Is the Case.”
Trump is accused of multiple conspiracies against the United States, all designed to keep him in power against the will of the voters and in violation of the Constitution. The former president—once our chief executive, the commander in chief, the leader we entrusted with the keys to nuclear hell—is accused of knowing that he lost a free and fair election, and, rather than transferring power to a duly elected successor, engaging in criminal plots against our democracy, all while firing up a mob that would later storm the Capitol.
[…]
The GOP base, controlled by Trump’s cult of personality, will likely never admit its mistake: As my colleague Peter Wehner writes, Trump’s record of “lawlessness and depravity” means nothing to Republicans. But other Republicans now, more than ever, face a moment of truth. They must decide if they are partisans or patriots. They can no longer claim to be both.
The rest of us, as a nation but also as individuals, can no longer indulge the pretense that Trump is just another Republican candidate, that supporting Donald Trump is just another political choice, and that agreeing with Trump’s attacks on our democracy is just a difference of opinion. (Those of us who share our views in the media have a particular duty to cease discussing Trump as if he were a normal candidate—or even a normal person—especially after today’s indictment.) I have long described Trump’s candidacies as moral choices and tests of civic character, but I have also cautioned that Americans, for the sake of social comity, should resist too many arguments about politics among themselves. I can no longer defend this advice.
The indictment handed down today challenges every American to put a shoulder to the wheel and defend our republic in every peaceful, legal, and civilized way they can. According to the charges, not only did Trump try to overturn the election; he presided over a clutch of co-conspirators who intended to put down any further challenges to Trump’s continued rule by force.
[…]
This is why we can no longer merely roll our eyes when an annoying uncle rhapsodizes about stolen elections. We should not gently ask our parents if perhaps we might change the channel from Fox during dinner. We are not obligated to gingerly change the subject when an old friend goes on about “Demonrats” or the dire national-security implications around Hunter Biden’s genitalia. Enough of all this; we can love our friends and our family and our neighbors without accepting their terms of debate. To support Trump is to support sedition and violence, and we must be willing to speak this truth not only to power but to our fellow citizens.
Trump and his media enablers, of course, will fume that any criticism of choices made by millions of voters is uncivil and condescending—even as they paint other American citizens as traitors who support pedophiles and perverts. Trump has made such accusations, and the implied threat of violence behind them, part of the everyday American political environment. This brutish bullying is aimed at stopping the rest of us from speaking our mind. But after today, every American citizen who cares about the Constitution should affirm, without hesitation, that any form of association with Trump is reprehensible, that each of us will draw moral conclusions about anyone who continues to support him, and that these conclusions will guide both our political and our personal choices.
This is painful advice to give and to follow. No one, including me, wants to lose friends or chill valued relationships over so small a man as Trump. But our democracy is about to go into legal and electoral battle for its own survival. If we don’t speak up—to one another, as well as to the media and to our elected officials—and Trump defeats us all by regaining power and making a mockery of American democracy, then we’ll all have lost a lot more than a few friendships. We face in Trump a dedicated enemy of our Constitution, and if he returns to office, his next “administration” will be a gang of felons, goons, and resentful mediocrities, all of whom will gladly serve Trump’s sociopathic needs while greedily dividing the spoils of power.
NYT columnist David French, another #NeverTrumper, says this is “The Trial America Needs.”
At last. The federal criminal justice system is going to legal war against one of the most dishonest, malicious and damaging conspiracies in the history of the United States. Tuesday’s indictment of Donald Trump, brought by the special counsel Jack Smith’s office, is the culmination of a comprehensive effort to bring justice to those who attempted to overthrow the results of an American presidential election.
[…]
The strong constitutional protection for efforts to influence or persuade the government makes the intent element inescapable, no matter the count in the indictment. While there are certainly nuances in the other counts regarding the precise form of proof necessary to establish criminal intent, the fact remains that the prosecution will have to utterly demolish the idea that Trump possessed a good-faith belief that he had won the election.
But that’s precisely why this case is so important — more important than any previous Trump indictment. If the prosecution prevails, it will only be because it presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the election fraud claims that a substantial percentage of Americans still believe to be true were not only false but were also known to be false when they were made.
I am not naïve. I know that not even a guilty verdict will change the perceptions of many of Trump’s most loyal supporters. As my Times colleague Nate Cohn wrote on Monday, “The MAGA base doesn’t support Mr. Trump in spite of his flaws. It supports him because it doesn’t seem to believe he has flaws.” The perceptions of these supporters may never change. They may remain loyal to Trump as long as they live.
[…]
Millions of Americans believe today that Joe Biden stole the presidency. They believe a series of demonstrable, provable lies, and their belief in those lies is shaking their faith in our republic and, by extension, risking the very existence of our democracy. There is no sure way to shake their convictions, especially if they are convinced that Trump is the innocent victim of a dark and malign deep state. But the judicial system can expose his claims to exacting scrutiny, and that scrutiny has the potential to change those minds that are open to the truth.
Smith has brought a difficult case. But it’s a necessary case. Foot soldiers of the Trump movement are in prison. Its allied militia leaders are facing justice. And now the architect of our national chaos will face his day in court. This is the trial America needs.
Like the others, I’m highly skeptical that the trial will break the cult of personality around Trump. But it is nonetheless necessary for this trial to proceed and his guilt established in a court of law.
They dont believe he has flaws, but also because what we see as flaws they see as virtues.
Steve
IANAL and I don’t understand why establishing criminal intent requires showing Trump knew his election fraud claims were untrue. Don’t his extra legal actions show criminal intent on their own?
He was just the ideas guy. Wasn’t his fault that people followed his orders.
I swear I heard Henry Kissinger say this once about his actions re: Chile and Pinochet.
I have friends that are diehard Trump supporters and I find it helpful to think of them as if they have brought home a boyfriend or girlfriend that everyone but them can see is just nothing but trouble and the relationship will end very very badly, but there is no talking or reasoning with them. They are in a headspace where they are all in and anyone telling them something negative just doesn’t understand.
The difference is that such relationships always come to an end, usually when the BF/GF does something directly to the significant other and it can no longer be denied. (Even then, it is rare that it results in the person coming back to all the friends who tried to warn them.) But in this case, Trump will never do anything directly to them. They have no relationship with him other than sending him money and buying his crap. So there will never be an action that goes too far. They will go to their grave thinking that no one else understands.
Hard to get excited about this.
My wife when I told her the news: “Let me know when there is an actual trial. Until then, same shit, different day.”
And she’s right. Until there is an actual trial, it’s all theatre.*
*I hate that I’ve become this cynical.
This is how your bog standard GOP presidential candidate sees it:
https://twitter.com/marianne_levine/status/1686536840675835905
https://nitter.net/AntiToxicPeople/status/1686547867367063552
@stevecanyon:
It’s probably just sloppy journalism.
1) Trump isn’t being indicted for merely claiming that the election was stolen, but for actively trying to overturn the results.
2) Even if Trump sincerely believed that the election was stolen, that didn’t give him the right to use extralegal means to change the outcome. Presidents are not above the law.
I am fairly certain that the question whether Trump knew that his claims were untrue is nothing but a red herring.
https://nitter.net/RonFilipkowski/status/1686689545402630144
@drj:
Drama Queen Donnie knew he was lying. He called Sidney Powell “crazy” for spreading the same false claims he spread, and when Mike Pence told Trump that his requests were unconstitutional, Trump responded that Pence was “too honest.”
A successful self-defense claim in a murder trial doesn’t just turn on the defendant’s alleged belief and fears, the claim has to be at least somewhat reasonable based on the evidence. You can claim all day long you sincerely believed you were acting in self-defense, but if forensic evidence shows you shot your unarmed victim in the back from 100 yards away, you’re going to jail. This is what got the South Georgia vigilantes who murdered Ahmaud Aberey and the North Charleston officer who murdered Walter Scott convicted.
People should read the indictment.* The preliminary evidence in it (a mere preview of coming attractions; see Meadows, Mark) already shows Trump lied and knew he was lying — per usual. Lock him up and throw away the key.
*There are also podcast readings of the indictment already available, if one prefers to listen to someone else read it.
@DK:
Yeah, but self-defense is legal, overturning election results outside of the legal system isn’t. It never is (contrary to the use of deadly force, which can be allowed if certain circumstances are met).
“Alleged beliefs” are irrelevant here – at least when it comes to the question of guilt.
It’s not a democracy, it’s a banana republic.
Biden’s DOJ was just exposed in their attempt to give Hunter lifetime immunity in a “sweetheart” deal in open court. And when the Biden crime family falls, a lot of the DC crowd fall with them as Joe has 50+ years of corruption to call on. But relax, it’s all prep right now, and remains to be seen if they can keep it together until another through another post-election vote counting
These genuine stupidity XTwitter bots are terrible.
@JKB:
And yet the actual amount of evidence for these assertions is, to date, largely zero (while acknowledging, as we repeatedly have for years here at OTB that Hunter has various real legal and moral problems and has obviously been cashing in on his Dad’s name).
You sound unhinged.
If they are a “crime family” it should be a lot easier to demonstrate.
Meanwhile, the evidence of Trump’s malfeasance is legion.
@JKB: This is what happens when you forget to take your meds.
@JKB:
And yet to date we have seen exactly zero evidence that supports your claims.
Per usual…
@JKB: 50 years of corruption? Must be pretty incompetent at it. Was regularly estimated as having the least net worth in the Senate. Current net worth estimated to be $9M.
@JKB:
Dude, sometimes your posts are okay and have some sort of interesting thing to say or point out, but as of late I have to agree with most folks on this site who reply to your posts with a huh, what???
Just parroting the latest catchphrase that the GOP is hoping will catch on (hint, it has not caught on like you think it has) does not make for an interesting post.
Nothing you have said or others have tried to reveal about Biden have me thinking Biden is the head of a crime family. Also, so what if Biden tried to get the best deal for his son, anyone of us could understand the urge to provide the best defense and try to figure out a way to keep a family member out of jail. That is why Lawyers, and folks like them exist.
Also, so what again…even if Biden’s efforts fail to protect his son he understands the very real possibility is that Hunter could do some jail time for his actions. How does a son of a President behaving badly and possibly getting genuinely penalized for his behavior compare to an ex-President who has multiple indictments against him for trying to attempt a coup and with the help of lawyers no less, seriously, how does putting Trumps criminal actions up against an unindicted President show that President Joe Biden is a criminal mastermind. What the fig dude, show your work, prove to me that Biden is secretly the head of a crime syndicate.
Right now, you come off as someone with their head up their rear, and to paraphrase a cool piece of dialogue I have heard in a film, son, that is not how you want to go through life.
Just screaming Marcia!, Marci…I mean Biden Crime Family!, Biden Crime Family!, Biden Crime Family! does not magically turn Biden into a criminal. Get a grip dude. Your guy actually tried to steal an election, and I suspect you are going to start to see to some genuine anger in the coming weeks from folks who are pissed off about Trump’s actions.
@JKB:
It’s a democratic republic + representative democracy. We came close to banana republic status with Trump’s pardons of his felon associates Steve Bannon and Mike Flynn, but now that America-hating traitor Trump and his wannabe-fascist conspirators are being held accountable, it appears we’ve thwarted the worst for now — pending the 2024 elections.
The House GOP’s lack of solutions to the real problems facing America has been exposed by their Hunter Derangement Syndrome, harassing a private citizen who has never had any role in goverment because apparently Republicans have nothing to run on but Hunter Biden’s dic pics. How embarassing for them.
In normal times, the DOJ would be investigating the Trump crime family’s corrupt deals, including the $2 billion bribe Jared Kushner got from the Saudis and Ivanka Trump’s Chinese trademarks, since both were taxpayer-paid White House advisors unlike Biden’s son. But given Trump’s theft of national security documents and use of sore loser election lies to incite a terror attack, the DOJ has bigger fish to fry, to reassert the rule of law against dishonest attacks by brainwashed MAGA extremist like you.
I really appreciate the call to action in Thom Nichols’ commentary above:
He acknowledges how hard it will be for him and for others, as we have acknowledged the challenge here at OTB. But, it is past time that we put “otherwise decent” Trump supporters AND fall-in-line Republican enablers on the hook for their continued fealty to TFG.
Mike Pence put out a statement last night – “On January 6, Former President Trump demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. I chose the Constitution and I always will…” Good on him. We need much, much more of this.
Go ahead, explain things carefully to the troll and/or trumper. That usually works.
@MarkedMan:
Against stupidity the very Gods Themselves contend in vain.
Friedrich Schiller.
One has to wonder what motivates JKB to come here and drop his poop, then run off and hide. He just comes off as obnoxious and cowardly. Go figure.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trumps-legal-defenses-explained
@JKB: Obviously you have nothing to say in defense of Trump, because you immediately jump to a “whattabahtoverheah” argument.
@JKB:
You, like all MAGAts, are one of two things: a moron or a liar. If you believe the stolen election bullshit, you’re a moron. If you don’t, but continue to pretend to, you’re a liar. Moron or liar. Pick one.
@JKB:
You owe me a new irony meter. The complaints of a dead-end supporter of a person who led campaign rallies with the audience chanting for his political opponents to be locked up without trial that someone else is politicizing justice just broke it beyond repair.
@Michael Reynolds: Why does he have to pick one? Por que no los dos?
@JKB:
This is a great example of “tell me you don’t understand what happened without telling me you don’t understand what happened” in the case of that plea deal.
I’ve been meaning to write about this, but it’s clear that *wasn’t* what the DoJ intended–to the degree that they went on record as saying that and that’s why the poorly constructed deal fell apart.
BTW, in doing her job well, the Judge actually protected Hunter Biden… I know, crazy right?!
But partisan brain worms, combined with being convinced you are the smartest person in the room, is a hell of a drug.
—-
[Edit: Now that I’ve finished a post on the latest Turley defense, I will work on a post that attempts to unpack the legal shit show–in honestly no one but the judge did a good job–that was that plea deal session. Spoiler alert, it’s going to involve a lot of Occam’s and Harlon’s Razor in equal measure. And probably piss everyone off in the process.]
@charontwo:
It’s getting philosophical: how do you defend the indefensible? What’s the sound of one-hand clapping? What does the wind do when it’s not blowing?
Republicans are doubling down in their embrace of Trump.
Does this make the GOP;
A. a cult
B. a criminal enterprise
C. both
Discuss.
@Daryl:
Not all Republicans, but some mix of A, B, and/or C describes all of the ones that are driving the train.
@JKB: I hear the dark side of the moon farting.
“Person, woman, man, camera, TV…” even trump’s farts make more sense than your rants.
@becca:
But that is the thing, he usually does not come off like some of our semi-regular trolls who just drop a Noun, a Verb, and 9-11 (or now Biden Crime Family) into their post and disappear for a time.
His posts may reference articles, and stuff from 1923, but at least some thought goes into those types of posts.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who drops the words Biden Crime Family into their posts deserves to be treated as a troll and banned from whatever site they are on when posting such a comment. In fact, so as not to be hoisted by my own petard, as I will not be asking for preferential treatment by James and Steven if I continue to use the words Biden Crime Family, I will stop using this string of words in my comments starting now, so I do not get myself banned from this site, lol!!
The GOPer, MAGA head, or Tucker Carlson type person who put that string of words out into the wild has be laughing their asses off at how stupid folks sound when they say those words, knowing that you have to be a special kind of fool or extremely gullible person to believe what they are trying to sell you. It would be much funnier if it were not so sad.
ETA: Also, at times I realize that sometimes folks have some fun with me because while they can suss out that I have brains instead of trains in my head, there are jokes that I do not quite get, stuff that makes me come off as a bit gullible, which I am cool with folks pointing that out to me, as I feel we all can be a bit gullible at times, but as the saying goes there is being gullible, and then there is being Gullible, lol.
@becca:
I’ve always felt that there’s a not insignificant chance he’s just a traditional troll, I.e. someone who just says stuff to rile us up
@MarkedMan: I get the impression he would prefer not to be an outsider looking in. OTB has evolved over the years in ways JKB has not. I get the feeling he resents that.
@MarkedMan: All this time I thought he was just a not so closeted masochist.
@stevecanyon:
IAANAL, but it’s worth noting that people who are lawyers have said that this form of indictment, that tells a story and lays out theory of the case at this level of detail, is relatively rare. Smith is making an effort to be very transparent and cut down conspiracy theories and fake legal arguments with these indictments.
There are sections that are essentially a prebuttal for expected arguments, because the indictment will be carefully scrutinized by bad faith actors.
I don’t know that the laws the disgraced former President broke require intent (some laws do, some don’t), but it’s a stronger case to the public to demonstrate that he did it knowingly.
@Gustopher: IAANAL but I have read that intent and proving it lies at the heart of most white collar criminal prosecutions, far more so than it is in the regular every day armed robberies and murders.
@charontwo:
I be guessing, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see Trump’s fall (if it comes) resemble Hemingway’s description of how he went broke: “Slowly, and then suddenly”. Seems to be how most cults die.
Recall the fall of Eugene McCarthy who also ruled with fear. In the space of about a week the fear vanished and he had no friends. None worth mentioning, anyway. It’s a stiff but also brittle means of control. When people are forced to act in ways in which they do not want act to they hate it, but moreover they also loathe themselves for knuckling under. That self-loathing can become toxic.
Everybody is looking for a chance to get off the bus, and if it ever stops…it’s empty faster than one can say “Oh s$*t”.
https://nitter.net/MuellerSheWrote/status/1686808397314932736
“NYT“
@dazedandconfused:
Don’t you mean Joseph McCarthy?
Sigh, I continue to contribute to this thread drifting off-subject, but hopefully, I will move on after this post. First, I know you are their JKB looking at these posts insulting you, and I kind-of feel that is a dickish thing for me (and others) to do especially to someone I have not met in person to really form some sort of opinion about them. So genuinely sorry about that, it is not a good look for me. I am at least self-aware enough to try and be better than that.
That being said, you have indicated that you are an educator in the past correct? Some of your posts strike me as a post from someone who went to the web/library/JSTOR to find some article to buttress the point they are trying to make in a paper or on-line post, and I actually really appreciate that.
However, that is also why I am a bit surprised (and to be honest, a bit disappointed) that you seem to have easily fallen into the trap of just believing what seems to come out of the mouth of a Fox News host, or the equivalent Fox News like website or blog. To me, it feels like it would be so easy to get clued in that whatever Tucker, or his equivalent is telling you is more likely than not to show that he/she is full of more carp than a Christmas goose.
This is not just directed at JKB, but to all the folks who have not ever stopped to think to themselves that there has to be more than one or two “news” channels out there, and I am surprised you have not gotten the itch to check out some other channels.
You might fight yourself going, wow…there seems to be at least half a dozen communist/libtard new channels/sites all saying the same thing (Trump is guilty as sin), and think…hmmm, why are so many folks saying one thing and your guy/gal is saying another, I like to think it would at least expose a tiny sliver of curiosity as to why so many folks are saying one thing vs that lone individual or two insisting that the moon is made out of green cheese.
Seriously, for someone who does some research to find articles from many decades past you have shown that you are a wee bit curious about reading and learning about stuff that you may not have a lot of ingrained knowledge about but are willing to learn, so to hear you so effortlessly parrot that string of words about our President is a bit jarring. I like to think you are not 100% that guy.
@CSK: Yup, my bad.
@inhumans99: Years ago I remember reading a plaintive article from a scientist, a physicist I believe, who had started his teaching career with the best of intentions. In particular, he vowed he was never going to succumb to what he considered the bad behavior of his colleagues whenever they got a letter (snail mail, this was back in the day) from a member of the general public who had written into the department looking for someone to share their “evidence” of this or that flaw in Einsteins Relativity theorems, or some other famous but hard to envision theory or law. As educators, shouldn’t you engage with the public respectfully, listen to them with open ears and, if you discovered a flaw in their logic, carefully explain it and point it out? And, of course, if there was no flaw – Hey! Nobel Prizes for the both of you!
But his article was written a number of years after he had launched himself on this pathway, when he had realized that in almost all cases there was no possibility of these correspondents ever accepting that, yes they had an interesting point, but of course it had occurred to Einstein in the original paper and this is how he dealt with it. No dialog was possible because there was something broken in them, some fundamental lack.
James Randi, the magician and found of the Skeptical Inquirer wrote a similar letter specifically to dowsers. He had a standing $1M prize offer to anyone who could demonstrate psychic abilities and over the years he had dealt with hundreds of dowsers. He felt that they differed from many of the others that had come to claim the prize in that very few of them were charlatans, that almost all seemed to generally believe in their abilities. They would agree to his test conditions and verify that it was fair and that they would easily demonstrate their abilities… and then they would fail. But in all the hundreds of times over a half century he had tested, all but the barest handful refused to accept the results. They had an illness that day that affected them, or there was something in the air of the test area that threw them off, or sometimes they just wandered off befuddled. He described taking in their sad confusion and it pained him. He wrote this open letter to them, begging them not to keep coming back, but the whole time he knew the letter was useless.
I guess I’ve reached the point of that physics professor and Randi. There simply is no point in engaging. If someone wants to argue the effects of the pitch clock on the amount of stolen bases this season, great! Maybe we will learn something together. But if someone wants to argue that baseball umpires are aliens from the planet Zorg and they are sucking the souls out of baseball fans, is there any point in having the conversation in the first place?
@OzarkHillbilly:
Who knows what lies in the heart of the white collar alleged-criminal? The Shadow knows, but he probably does a lot of insider trading himself. The law protects the wealthy.
Anyway, understanding the audience that a document was written for is often key to understanding the document. The Jack Smith written indictments are meant for public consumption, and do contain things that are absolutely not needed in an indictment — for instance, the entire “Here’s what Trump said that was protected by the First Amendment” section.
I have heard that at least some of what he is charged with doesn’t require a defendant to believe that he was doing illegal things for a bad purpose — that even if he believed the election was stolen, these would still be crimes, and even if the election was indeed stolen they would still be crimes.
But, if I was a juror who believed the election was stolen, I don’t think I would be so quick to convict someone who was trying to steal it back. The inclusion of “Trump knew this was bullshit” is an effort to stop as much of that as possible before it starts (in addition to any legal requirements).
@MarkedMan:
People closed to evidence and reason are the most infuriating individuals in the world.
In the past, even not that long ago, there were far more things to discover, and many were far easier to investigate. An amateur or outsider might make observations worth noting, or even work out theories on their own. But these people tended to be methodical and factual as well. See for instance Gregor Mendel and his work on pea seeds and flowers.
@MarkedMan:
In which case a lot of us are feeding him what he wants.
@inhumans99:
It’s worse than that. Cultish behavior, which is what this is, is taught to actively resist information from sources not approved by the cult. These are people who strive to avoid exposure to whatever the “MSM,” “liberal media,” etc. are saying. Trying to get through to people like this seldom succeeds.
@gVOR10:
I may have warned against feeding the trolls one or two (million) times over the past few years.
@charontwo:
Nor is that practice even limited to groups generally recognized as “cults.” The history of private religious education (of pretty much all religions) is founded on notions of protecting “our children” from the corrupting influences of “the world.”
Indeed.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Fascism also, it’s a way of thinking that is used by various belief systems. Trust “us,” distrust “them.”