SUMMARY: This post analyzes the popular conservative defense of Trump’s DC indictment as being a violation of his free speech rights. Such claims are so clearly contrary to reality that they constitute gaslighting and indicate just how widespread conservative disdain for our democracy and rights are.
KEYWORDS: Free speech, Gaslighting, Indictment, Trump, #GOPDystopia, Conservatives
It’s been a week at Ye Olde Blogge! Not only did we return from vacation, but Jack Smith. We’re going to address the gaslighting that is inherent in the Republican and conservative defense of Trump.
- INDICATEMENT #2: Somewhere along the way, Trump was indicated AGAIN! Which is sweet sweet Schadenfreude to most of us, but also just sad. This is the indictment and charges that we’ve been anticipating since eight o’clock 4 November 2016.
- INDICATEMENT #2, 2: The great thing about intercontinental travel is that it gives you plenty of time to to do stuff if you plan it well. One of the things I did was download the Trump indictment and read it. You should, too.
- FREE SPEECH! The defenders of Trump have gotten their talking points straight, which is to say, they couldn’t come up with any new ones, so they just kept repeating old ones, which is the topic of this post. Haha!
The Republican defense of Trump is that he is being prosecuted for indulging his free speech rights. The defense tells you everything you need to know about Republican, conservative, MAGA, racist, evangelical, the you-name-it part of their coalition: They no longer support our democracy, Constitution, or our vision of an inclusive society.
Know the Truth: Read the Indictment
The Indictment Shows Free Speech is NOT being Prosecuted
Their free speech defense is so much gaslighting. Here’s how you know:
THE INDICTMENT: On page 2, paragraph 3, the indictment states clearly that Trump had the free speech right to make all of the claims he wanted true or false about the election. The beauty part of the indictment is that it is written in plain English. Not a word of legalese in it. Here, I’ll copy it over for you:
Th Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts and audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
Read the Trump indictment, Politico
In a report entitle, Lost, Not Stolen, eight well-known attorneys, judges, and politicians reviewed ALL of the Trump legal challenges to the 2020 election and determined that they were “woefully inadequate.” PolitiFact reports that Biden’s January 2021 remarks that Trump’s 63 court cases challenging the election were meritless was a true and accurate statement.
Trump had legal avenues to pursue any problems he perceived with the election, he took them, and he lost them all. His recounts and vote audits famously and humiliatingly added votes to Biden’s victory.
There is nothing wrong with lying about the election even if it is immoral. The government can’t regulate the amount that you lie even if you break the record, as, science fact, Trump did with an average of nine lies per day.
Lying is Protected Speech, Obstructing the Election is Criminal Behavior
THE BOTTOM LINE is that Trump is not being prosecuted or even persecuted or even held accountable for the Big Lie that election was stolen from him. He’s being prosecuted for conspiring to obstruct government proceedings, defraud the government, and to deprive Americans of their right to vote. They will be required to present evidence that will convince a jury of twelve citizens that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gaslighting the Indictment
GASLIGHTING: Gaslighting is the abusive act of trying to convince someone that their perceptions and understanding of reality isn’t true. The gaslighter is trying to convince you that their lie is reality. Here are two examples of conservative gaslighting around Trump’s DC indictment.
The Wall Street Journal Gaslighting DoJ Prosecutors
The The Wall Street Journal op-ed board published this opinion on the indictment. See if you can spot the gaslighting:
“This potentially criminalizes many kinds of actions and statements by a President that a prosecutor deems to be false. You don’t have to be a defender of Donald Trump to worry about where this will lead. It makes any future election challenges, however valid, legally vulnerable to a partisan prosecutor.”
Another Troubling Trump Indictment
The gaslighting part is that the indictment makes it abundantly clear that Trump isn’t being indicted for speech; he’s being indicted for actions. Many punditing pundits have pundited on the various ways speech crosses the line into crime by using examples of bank robbery and murder. However, the worst issue with this op-ed is not the conflation of Trump’s free speech with his criminal behavior, it is suggesting that DoJ prosecutors are partisan. That can only happen if the policy changes championed by the Heritage Foundation to be implemented by the next Republican president. Once again, we are treated to accusation by projection.
Fox News’ Will Cain Gaslighting about Lying
Here’s Fox & Fiends Weekends host, Will Cain, gaslighting us all with this txeet:
The txeet reads:
Free speech has been indicted. Read this section of the indictment.
It acknowledges that Trump has the right to say, even falsely, the results were fraudulent and claim he won the election. That’s protected by the First Amendment.
But the indictment says he can’t lie about the election fraud. So they must prove Trump didn’t believe his speech. And then, I would think, they’d need to indict every politician who lies (need to build more jails) about election results (Clinton, Kerry, Abrams).
The DOJ has criminalized politics. And because, who is to decide the truth, criminalized free speech.
The false equivalence drawn between Trump’s multiple attempts to criminally circumvent the outcome of the 2020 election with the suggestions made by Clinton, Kerry, and Abrams that perhaps the efforts by the GOP to suppress and nullify the votes of Democratic voters were effective and caused them to lose is first class gaslighting. The two are not equivalent.
Proving the Elements of a Crime and Gaslighting
Again, it is clear that Trump is not being prosecuted for what he said, he is being prosecuted for what he did. The indictment spells out very clearly that they have evidence sufficient to have convinced a grand jury that these four crimes took place. To convince a petite jury at trial, they’ll need to prove these elements, which they outline in the indictment:
- CRIMINAL ACT: They have to have done it and done it voluntarily and not as a reaction or reflex. However, speech can constitute a crime if it occurs in the course of purgery, a verbal threat, conspiracy, or solicitation. The indictment outlines each of these acts and the evidene used to support them.
- A conspiracy to defraud the US by obstructing and defeating the presidential election.
- A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the certification of the election on 6 January 2021.
- A conspiracy to impede our right to vote and to have that vote counted.
- CRIMINAL INTENT: They must have intended to have done what they did. The definition includes purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently acting.
- The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he had lost the election, yet entered into these conspiracies anyway.
- The burden of proof is on the government, but they met a lower burden in convincing a grand jury to bring the charges. That’s important.
- CONCURRENCE: The intent had to occur at the same time of or before the act.
- The indictment is very specific. It lists the dates who told Trump that he had lost the election. It even sites evidence that Trump acknowledged losing the election.
- At each juncture, when his legal objections to the election failed, and he was told he had lost the election, he escalated the criminal schemes to remain in office.
- CAUSATION: The prosecution must demonstrate that the actions and intent of the defendant led to whatever happened that was considered a crime.
- For each conspiracy, the indictment outlines the evidence that the actions that Trump knowingly took led to violations of the law.
The problem is that the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal, Will Cain, and everyone else who is making this free speech argument knows they are wrong. And, that is the problem. They want to deceive the American people and to help Trump win the 2024 election.
They know that if Trump or some other Republican wins the presidency, that the knives come out eight o’clock day one and the throat of our democracy is being slashed. If they know it, and they are saying it anyway, they must want it to happen, right?
They know what they are saying is wrong and is clearly contradicted in the indictment. They are trying to convince everyone who will listen that Trump is not being prosecuted, but persecuted. That is the definition of gaslighting. They are deliberately gaslighting us to enact the #GOPDystopia. It is as simple as that. And, that is why it is imperative that everyone read the indictment or listen to it being read.
If you enjoyed this post, then please support Ye Olde Blogge by doing one of the following:
- SHARE the post on your favorite or not so favorite social media platforms or re-blog it to your favorite or not so favorite blogs.
- LIKE or RATE the post using the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. It is a simple and easy way of letting me know you’ve been here.
- COMMENT on the post and let us know what you think of Trump’s indictments or the attempts to gaslight us about what is in it.
- FOLLOW the blog or join or email list and always realize when you’ve missed a post!
Image Attribution
“The Face of the Republican Party: Willing to Do Trump’s Bidding as Attorney-General To ‘Stop the Steal,’ Jeffrey Clark” by outtacontext is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Share this:
Categories: Abnormal Psychology
The Psy of Life 
It should be patently obvious, at this point, that the entire “Prosecution” of the Trump matter was begun and will end with pre-assured outcomes and that the former guy will sail through the entire mess completely unscathed and will re-assume the Oval Office in 2024 without a glitch. The authentic (Real) gas-lighting in this affair is not the claims being made by those who are defending the former guy; the real gas-lighting in this affair is coming from those who want us to believe that an authentic attempt to bring justice in this matter is underway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Howdy John!
Um… laws were broken or at least enough evidence that laws were broken to trigger the investigation and bring the indictment. Now we’ll see if there is sufficient evidence of laws being broken to bring a conviction. Each level requires its a higher burden of proof on the government and more independent adjudication of the evidence.
I would urge you to read the indictment. It lays out the basic evidence, laws, and reasoning for the indictment. It is all pretty convincing. It is difficult to imagine any defense whatsoever of the charges.
There is no evidence that the 2020 election was corrupt. And, even if one believed that it was, you cannot violate the laws of the country because of it.
Again, if you go back to the definitions of terms and evidence of what happened, it is clear.
Gaslighting is the use of psychological manipulation to cause another to doubt their interpretation of reality.
Trump is not being prosecuted because he claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him regardless of the factual nature of the statement. He’s being prosecuted for taking definite steps to disrupt and prevent the lawful transfer of power from himself to Biden.
Reality is that Trump was taking those steps as documented through written evidence and witness testimony. To try and convince us otherwise is the definition of gaslighting.
Huzzah!
Jack
LikeLike
Jack, it is a joy to have your clear thinking (and accurate) to read here on a Sunday morning, especially since I don’t do church. I don’t have much to add. You’ve covered it, but there are further thoughts, as usual.
The discussions in the media have been taking up the notion that the jury will have to decide whether Trump really believed (and still does) that the election was stolen, or whether he was knowingly lying, as a “defendant’s state of mind” question. Here’s an example one of my Indivisible group posted to our (private) FB page: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2023/0802/At-heart-of-Jan.-6-case-Trump-s-state-of-mind?j=918408&sfmc_sub=120374828&l=1215_HTML&u=33932584&mid=10979696&jb=10006&cmpid=ema%3AWeekender%3A20230805&src=newsletter&fbclid=IwAR37MjJTMIBYV7_FeciZ3cCrkutrq6AqUtxviyU8c9b0R-hfy7Kh1j2uZL8
I generally don’t expect gaslighting from the CS Monitor. 😦
I commented on that posting saying that the indictment pretty well took that issue off the table in the paragraph you quoted above. Then, I realized that there is a State Of Mind question, but those authors were asking the wrong one. The question is about Trump’s state of mind when making the decisions to go outside the bounds and process of the law. The indictment’s answer is in item 2 in the initial exposition; “Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power.” That is his state of mind from the moment he decided to run for President, to remain in power by any available means for as long as possible (Term Limits? Ha!) if he was able to get there.
We will see how it works out that the Special Counsel is calling Trump out for his threatening language toward all who have ever opposed or disappointed him as potential witness intimidation and tampering, and possible violation of the admonition by the judge about discussing the case and not breaking any laws.
LikeLike
Howdy Bob!
Thank you for the link to the “Christian Monitor” article. It is a publication that I don’t usually follow. I find their reading of the indictment and the role of intent. He knew he was obstructing a proceeding on 6 January and the fake electors would further disrupt it. Whether he thought it was justified or not is immaterial. That’s the “Les Miserable” conundrum. We all sympathize with Jean and think it was okay for him to steal the bread, but it was still against the law. The court may even show mercy upon him because he had a good reason to do what he did (Jean or Trump), but it doesn’t make it any less illegal.
It is absolutely clear that his aides and lawyers were conspiring to disrupt and prevent the the transfer of power to Biden. They knew that is what they were doing. That was their stated goal. Stated very clearly many times over. Their motivation for doing so may mitigate their sentencing or cause us to forgive them or something, but it doesn’t change the behavior.
I think I should develop the following into a blog post: When I was a social worker, I consulted with several nursing homes. In one home there was a resident who would enter the rooms of the women who were demented, some were even bed ridden, and sexually abuse them. I notified Adult Protective Services. The nursing home director justified allowing him to do this because these women who couldn’t score a single point on a mental status exam, would light up when he entered the room. She described him as their boyfriend. The state inspector repeated this to me, and then said, “It’s true. They light up when they see him.” For fuck’s sake, I thought. “Pavlov’s dogs drooled, too,” I said to her and watched her face fall as she realized the implication.
It’s the same thing with so many reporters and other people. We are creating narratives to explain what we’re seeing because we are built to believe what is happening in our environment. We immediately construct a narrative that links various disparate things together whether they are actually connected or not.
That’s what is happening with Trump and this indictment. A similar thing happened with Bill Clinton and his impeachment. In Clinton’s case most of us thought, “Meh, I’d lie about an affair, too. What’s the big deal?” With Trump, we’re left struggling to use our neurotypical minds to understand the behavior of a neurodivergent mind. Trump doesn’t see, can’t see, the world as anything but an extension of himself.
I know you get that picture. That is a good blog post for this week. Luckily, I’m still on vacation from school and Ma Belle Femme is still being understanding because of my recent surgery, not that I would ever milk a situation like that, you know.
Huzzah!
Jack
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I know you wouldn’t, and I’m sure she does too. 🙂
The lead item in tonight’s SCRAPINGS is Teri Kanefield’s ever so clear answers to indictment questions and especially regarding intent, state of mind, and the use of circumstantial evidence. I’ll also be posting this one of yours to my local Indivisible group on FB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a bit of a surprise, I’ve long held the CSM as a voice of reason in all that insanity
LikeLiked by 2 people
Me too. But that’s why we’re talking about gaslighting. Nobody is immune from it or exempted from it. Not being confused and disoriented by it takes vigilance, understanding of how it works, and work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Howdy Bob and Ten Bears!
I don’t think CSM or the reporter that wrote the story is trying to gaslight us. I think they are repeating what a lot of other reporters are saying and not understanding the way the law works. I’m disappointed that the story does not reference any legal scholar that would identify the key points to distinguish speech from action. In that sense, you can see how successful the gaslighting of the nation has been.
Huzzah!
Jack
LikeLike
The essence of being successfully gaslit is not being able to think straight and not being able to see that you can’t think straight. That, and staying focused on the shiny object in the magicians hand while he does the trick with the other hand. It is also contagious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to say, on this topic, the gaslighting is near universal.
LikeLike
It has become a normalized mode of argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You hear people in the media say that something is gaslighting, but they never really seem have any depth of understanding about what it means. In fact, the media seems to lose the frame of the importance of many of the stories that are current.
LikeLike
The recipient loosing the frame is almost a definition of gaslighting. The goal of the gaslighter is to impose their frame or to at least muddle any framing. And, the quick takes that the media pacing of stories doesn’t make time for explaining the concept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oft attributed to Ben Franklin but probably not, may not have ever come from anywhere but … I was taught your rights end at the tip of your nose. Your right to offend ends when you offend. I don’t know, maybe it’s a Zen Thing, One of Ten Thousand, not that I learned from anyone in particular but picked up somewhere along The Way. There are no ‘rights’ without responsibilities. You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Well, OK, you could, but you could also be ripped to shreds by an angry mob. How it came down to me across fifteen generations on both sides of the family: you have the right to say, think or believe anything you wish to say, think or believe … until you infringe on my right to say, think or believe anything I wish to say, think or believe
Your rights end when they infringe upon mine …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Howdy Ten Bears!
I had never heard the thing about rights ending at the tip of your nose or the bit about being offensive. So much of popular humor in America is based on being offensive, which explains a lot about our societal dysfunction, I think. You know, Freud said, behind every joke is a bit of truth.
The conservatives have severed the connection between rights and responsibility by accusing the left of not wanting to be responsible for their behavior or mistakes. Now, especially, the religious right, no longer think of having rights but as being entitled. Our rights end when they offend their religious sensibilities. So, even if you’re thinking it, they can punish you for it. It’s like the Christian say, “Hate the sin; punish the sinner.”
Huzzah!
Jack
LikeLike
As ever, it is the right projecting their own behavior onto others
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hitler’s Propaganda Playbook 101.
LikeLike