There is nothing more important than a Trumpublican’s feelings. For them, and for you too. Their feelings weigh exactly the same as your facts. Equally applicable and equally valid. Trumpublican’s feelings are facts because they give rise to firmly held beliefs. If enough people have the same persistent, strong feeling, that represents an indisputable fact backed by the empirical evidence of a shared belief.
That’s why the 2020 presidential election results should have been overturned by either Congressional action or insurrection, because Trumpublicans have the feeling the results weren’t correct. They can’t be correct. Trumpublicans, in their unshakeable support of every post election legal action, will bounce from one state to another, from one case to another, and from one affidavit to another, because individual instances of “proof” don’t matter. They’re all equally utilizable until they aren’t. They are all representative of the groundswell of shared belief rooted in their feelings of dissatisfaction, hurt, and anger.
Ted Cruz will tell you, 39% of Americans believe the result was rigged. If that belief isn’t respected, that would be a “profound threat to democracy.”
We see the Trumpublican assertion that their feelings are of pre-eminent import in legislation and legal action and realize these moves are an extension of their fear of losing the “culture wars”. A war they created and perpetually lose.
In many states that have already passed nebulous anti-CRT legislation, the predicate for action is, how someone feels.
Texas‘ anti-CRT legislation: …any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.
Tennessee’s anti-CRT legislation: An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex
Iowa’s anti-CRT legislation: That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of that individual’s race or sex.
Oklahoma’s anti-CRT legislation: any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.
How someone was made to feel.
Why is it presumed that children are incapable of feeling empathy? Why would one presume a child would identify with the oppressor and not the oppressed? Who is responsible for teaching a child the tools by which they construct their emotional being, a parent or a teacher? Who should be responsible for that?
Which parent is likely to use the predicate of their child’s feelings for action against a teacher and school district? Probably the parent that taught their children to feel hurtsies when oppression is discussed. Probably a parent that instructed their child against empathy and to be on guard for lessons in inclusion and justice. Probably a parent more than happy to punch themselves in the face in order to “own the libs”.
Almost every post-election court action taken by Trumpublicans are based on the fact-free legitimacy of their feelings. King v Whitmer, Case No. 20-cv-13134, has evolved into a sanction case against the cadre of Kraken Lawyers: Sidney Powell, the weeping boo-boo faced Julia Haller, Lin “I didn’t have anything to do with this” Wood, Et al. The judge (extremely, almost maddeningly, patient judge) picked apart the ridiculous affidavits upon which they based their case. The affidavits were speculative and fact free.
Read the whole court transcript. It’s funny and extremely irritating. You’ll have insight into the garbage the courts have been dealing with.
From King v Whitmer:
THE COURT: All right. I want to point everyone’s attention to the next affidavit, which is the Ciantar – certainly, I’m certain I botched this person’s name. I apologize. I will spell it. It is C-i-a-n-t-a-r, set forth at ECF Number 6-7 at Page ID 1312-14. There it is right there. And the amended complaint states that Mr. Ciantar, independent — “independently witnessed,” while walking his dog, a young couple deliver three to four large plastic clear bags that appeared to be, “express bags,” as reflected in photographs taken contemporaneously, to a U.S. postal vehicle waiting. The use of clear express bags is consistent with the — there’s a whistleblower complaint that’s been referenced in the context of this lawsuit. I have not ever seen any underlying documents, but it’s a whistleblower suit by a U.S. Postal Service worker, Jonathan Clark. Putting aside the fact that Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence, as I just stated, regarding the postal service whistleblower claim, here are a few excerpts from the Ciantar affidavit which are now on the screen.
“I witnessed a young couple pull into the parking lot
of post office and proceed to exit their van, had no markings,
and open up the back hatch and proceed to take three to four
very large clear plastic bags out and walk them over to a
running postal service vehicle that appeared as if it was
‘waiting’ for them.”
Let me go further. “There was no interaction between
the couple and any postal service employee, which I felt was
very odd. They did not walk inside the post office like a
normal customer to drop off mail. It was as if the postal
worker was told to meet and stand by until these large bags
“As you can see in the pictures,” the affidavit goes
on to say, “the bags were clear plastic with markings in black
on the bag, and on the inside of these clear bags was another
plastic bag that was not clear, could not see what was inside.
There were markings on the clear bag and what looked like a
black security zip tie on each bag, as if it were tamper
evident, as if it were a tamper type of device to secure the
bag. This looked odd. What I witnessed and considered that
what could be in those bags could be ballots going to the TCF
Center or coming from the TCF Center.”
THE COURT: Now, this is quite a — I don’t — I don’t think I’ve really ever seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps. This is really fantastical. So my question to counsel here is: How can you, as officers of the Court, present this type of an affidavit? This is pure — is there anything in here that’s not speculative, other than the fact that the individual saw individuals with plastic bags? They don’t know what were in them, happened to be located at the post office, and then there’s a leap made there. Someone answer that question for the Court.
MS. HALLER: Yes, your Honor. The witness is stating or setting forth exactly what he observed and his information that he bases it on and he includes pictures.
THE COURT: What —
MS. HALLER: He does not say more. He does not say less than what he knows to be true. It is a true affidavit. It is a person with some information, and he is setting forth that information. When we put the case together, we put forth a pattern of evidence that shows fraud. So it’s a pattern of evidence that comes together, and this is one piece of a pattern. He is testifying, in his sworn statement, as to what he knows to be true. He saw these plastic bags. He’s explaining what he saw, and he takes pictures of them.
THE COURT: Okay. (repeatedly judge ends discussion on individual affidavits with, “Okay, moving on…”)
MS. HALLER: I would submit, your Honor, that it’s not fantastical. It’s simply what he knew to be true.
This affidavit is the highest example of the Trumpublican thought process. It is the ultimate expression of feelings turned speculation. If something could be true— it must be, particularly (exclusively) if it aligns with a Trumpublican’s feelings.
The affidavit is a representation of what the observer felt to be true. He’s telling his truth. Surely this weighs something in a court of law. The judge repeatedly, over the course of hours, quizzed the Kraken lawyers, how does believing it, make it true or even reasonable? How is this representative of a theory to the case? Where is the due diligence?
Sidney Powell was probably the most intelligent Kraken lawyer in this case— because she said next to nothing the whole time, which was wise. But, she did defend the importance of the affidavits by stating:
The very fact that we attached 960 pages of affidavits reflect how seriously we took this matter, how concerned we were about the constitutional issues that we raised on behalf of electors, who are, themselves, mentioned in the Constitution.
In other words, it is the sheer, literal weight of the words that are self-validating. If enough people feel it, well…it only follows it is true. Judge answers this assertion:
THE COURT: All right. Well, let me say volume, certainly for this Court, doesn’t equate with legitimacy or veracity. So please understand that is certainly my position.
In the more recent, and equally insane election lawsuit in Colorado, brought against a massive, make-believe conspiracy of defendants on behalf of all American voters for $160 Billion in damages, the judge has dismissed the case for the same reasons as above case which resulted in seeking sanctions against the Plaintiff’s representation.
Judge Neureiter: This Court dismissed the entire case for lack of standing on April 28, 2021
Note to self: every time a Trumpublican says election lawsuits were dismissed merely for lack of standing as if that were an unjust technicality, that doesn’t reflect the nature of the dismissal. Courts are not obligated to hear what appears to be fact-free innuendo and speculation, even if they are predisposed to plaintiff’s bringing a case. And, when they did hear post election lawsuits, they often dismissed them on that very basis, as in this case and the one above. They did observe the affidavits. They were garbage. All of them. Every one.
I use the words “vast conspiracy” purposefully. The Complaint is one enormous conspiracy theory.
In short, this was no slip-and-fall at the local grocery store. Albeit disorganized and fantastical, the Complaint’s allegations are extraordinarily serious and, if accepted as true by large numbers of people, are the stuff of which violent insurrections are made.
But that’s the point. If enough people believe it, it must be true. If it’s true, than an insurrection is just. Obviously.
The personal affidavits Plaintiffs attached to the original Complaint recount the generalized fear and suspicion that the “system” is rigged, and a sense that American democracy no longer works. The affidavits are notable only in demonstrating no firsthand knowledge by any Plaintiff of any election fraud, misconduct, or malfeasance. Instead, Plaintiffs’ affidavits are replete with conclusory statements about what must have happened during the election and Plaintiffs’ “beliefs” that the election was corrupted, presumably based on rumors, innuendo, and unverified and questionable media reports.
This case too, shall find itself in sanctions against the plaintiff’s representation. This is a necessary action to teach Trumpublicans, your feelings are not facts. Hopefully this will dissuade future legal actions in 2022. We’ve arrived at our last lines of defense.