Even Rudy Giuliani thought her plan to seek blanket immunity, before breaching Georgia voting machines, was “over the top,” according to a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman.
As allies of Donald Trump schemed to seize voting machines in swing states after the 2020 election, Sidney Powell proposed issuing preemptive pardons—which the team described as “hunting licenses”—to shield them from legal liability, according to a new book by investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman.
“I need six to eight pardons,” the former Trump attorney said in a Virginia planning meeting, according to Find Me the Votes, excerpts of which were reviewed by Vanity Fair ahead of its January 30 publication date. “What we need is a ‘hunting license’ that provides top cover for ops,” a member of Powell’s team wrote to Lin Wood, another Trump lawyer involved in the effort to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, according to Isikoff and Klaidman.
According to Isikoff and Klaidman, the team asked Michael Trimarco, an associate of Rudy Giuliani’s, to get the former New York City mayor to approve the pardon proposal. But Giuliani “dismissed the idea as over the top,” according to the book. Trimarco apparently agreed, recalling that he thought, “What the fuck?” as the group mulled the idea.
How can it be more clear that they actively tries or overturn the election?
The writing is no longer on the wall; it’s a giant, flashing neon sign in your living room.
It can’t be more clear. The question you should be asking is “why do some people not care?”.
I think why they do not care is because they don’t “believe” it. The more important question (IMO) is: “How can they deny this blatant reality?”
The answer is because they shield themselves from reality with Olympics level mental gymnastics, rationalizing away cognitive dissonance and living in their own deluded reality.
The answer is because they shield themselves from reality with Olympics level mental gymnastics, rationalizing away cognitive dissonance and living in their own deluded reality.
Oh my, no. It’s nothing that complicated. These are conservative minds, and the entirety of their worldview can be boiled down to one question:
Is this good for us?
It has nothing to do with denial or cognitive dissonance, because they simply are not thinking that hard about anything.
Is this good for us?
If the answer is yes, then everything else is negotiable. Reality is negotiable. Nothing is absolute unless it absolutely benefits the conservative self.
Is Trump a liar? Is Trump a serial rapist? Is Trump a national security threat?
Is it good for us if he is? No, so he isn’t.
Or maybe he is, but it’s not that big of a deal because it is better for us if it’s not a big deal.
Was the election stolen? It would be good for us if it was, so it was. We don’t have to prove it, because we already know it was because it would be good for us if it was. Why are we still arguing about this? Arguing about it is bad for us, so just accept that it was stolen and anything anyone did trying to prove it was fully justified because it would have been good for us if they had been successful.
Is abortion murder? Calling it that gets angry people to vote for us, so it is. Medical science? That’s not good for us, so it’s not real. Maybe it’s a conspiracy or the devil or immigrant trans lesbian atheists, but that’s not important right now so there’s no need to defend any of that ridiculousness.
You cannot argue with a conservative. You cannot point to the flaws in their logic, or provide concrete evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Changing the mind of a conservative is like changing the direction on a revolving door. You’re still either in or you’re out.
Realize this, and accept that you are not dealing with a rational ideology. It’s a dog with a ball that wants you to throw but won’t let go of the ball. It’s not complicated, there’s no deeper hidden communication coordinating all of the conservatives to orchestrate a big conspiracy. It’s simple narcissism. And it should be treated the same way you would treat a narcissist.
Set boundaries. Ignore theirs because they are not fixed.
Justify your boundaries with facts. Ignore their arguments because they are not based on facts. You’re not trying to convince them, you are justifying your position for the next rational person coming along. You don’t need to disprove every one of their firehose of bullshit arguments, you just need to prove your case and stand your ground.
Do not compromise or negotiate with a conservative. They will not be satisfied with whatever you give up, and they will take whatever extreme position is necessary to make the “middle” wherever they want to be.
Demand your rights, and accept no substitutes. The law exists to protect each of us from tyranny, and the conservative craves the position of tyrant. Your rights will not be given to you by a conservative, you will have to fight for them.
Remember this, and you will not be surprised by the hypocrisy of a conservative. You will never be confused about how they could possibly ignore facts and believe what they want. Your expectations will align with reality.
The “Is it good for us? Let me modify my interpretation/beliefs” act you’re describing is in itself rationalizing. What you’re focusing on is their motivation for doing so. And yes, it is a simple motivation.
You are right that there is no reasoning with radical groups like MAGA/QAnon/mainstream conservatives. We cannot pull them out of their extremism with reason. They have to want to change themselves.
Trying to persuade family who have fallen into this extremism typically backfires and results in frustration, anger, and hostility. This tends to just push the family member(s) further into the community they feel “gets them.”
All of this is cited and elaborated on in this blog post of mine. (I have ads turned off and do not benefit in any way from my blog.)
this guy spectacles
Their media bubble protects them from reality.
Because they stand to gain from it. (Or think they do.)
I think they believe the Dems are cheating, so that justifies them cheating as well.
even that’s a cover. what’s really at the bottom of everything is that they don’t care about right, wrong, legal, illegal, democracy, authoritarianism or any of that. they just want to hurt people, and they know who will let them.
Wait, Rudy was the voice of reason here? Did they mistakenly ask him while he was sober or something?
Your comment is so out of touch and ridiculous…
Rudy is never sober!
You’re making Rudy look bad, he was sober for years! (prior to 1953 I hear).
Presidential pardons just shouldn’t be a thing at all. A would-be dictator should never be given that power to shield his underlings from the law.
But what will happen to all those Turkeys sentenced to death by the White House?
Guess we’ll have to eat them.
INNOCENT people ask for Pardons!
Thought this title was going to lead to an Onion article. I should know better by now.
The fact that reality has been indistinguishable from The Onion since 2016 is the best argument for reality being a simulation. The admins decided to ramp up the satire levels. Then in 2020, they decided to leave satire turned up, but to also crank up suffering.
Just to be clear, I am only being sarcastic. I think…
She’s criminal, but she’s one of a kind and I have nostalgia for her chutzpah.
She knew there’s no such thing as a secret pardon, right?
Doesn’t have to be secret, but there would be state law violations here that the President can’t pardon away.
There actually isn’t a requirement that pardons be announced until they get someone out of the consequences. Trump could have pardoned himself for any federal crime, and just left the document in a drawer somewhere to be used later.
The question of constitutionality has never been tested, so maybe it works and maybe it doesn’t. As others have noted, it wouldn’t work at all for state crimes. But as a concept, “secret” pardons are conceivably possible and potentially valid. We just never had a criminal so brazen in the White House that anyone thought of it before.
Trump could not have pardoned himself because pardoning is not a thing people can do to themselves. Don’t normalize the idea that it is.
Imagine people saying “I pardon myself” after bumping into you on the street. That’s the level of absurdity we’re at.
None of that logic works.
Random people can’t legally pardon anyone. That’s why they can’t pardon themselves.
The President can legally pardon people accused of federal crimes. It’s only common sense that stops one from pardoning themselves, not the law.
I’m advocating for the meaning of words in the constitution meaning what they’ve always meant. There’s no need or justification for inventing some new legal meaning for a word the authors of the Constitution didn’t see fit to define.
