5 ms·

What's crazy to me is seeing this happen at an individual level. In 2022, my conservative family members were reluctantly but firmly on board with the idea that

What's crazy to me is seeing this happen at an individual level. In 2022, my conservative family members were reluctantly but firmly on board with the idea that Trump did the crimes: lied to the tax man, stole the classified documents, leaned on the Georgia secretary of state to "find me 11780 votes," and on Jan 6 set up fake electors and asked Pence to overturn the election. In each case, they gave a good fight, but as those who are familiar with these cases know, the evidence is overwhelming, almost comically so at points (the fake elector certifications are so poorly put together that they are tough not to laugh at, the recording of trump bragging about the classified documents and establishing intent belongs in a law school documentary). By 2024 they were 100% in lock-step with the party line that all cases were fake news lawfare (but wouldn't engage with detailed argument, of course) and in 2025 they are gaslighting me about ever having had those arguments at all. The only thing keeping me sane is the correspondence that I kept proving that our conversations weren't a product of my own fevered imagination.

adriand 1y ago
Man, that's a scary story. The Georgia thing especially is so easy to understand: just listen to the tape!
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  That, and Mike Pence went on Fox News and said: > President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes.
- bnjms 1y ago
  I’m going to go find these recordings now. But do you, or anyone else, have a preferred location for this type of data? For example reddit is consistently an echo chamber in the reverse direction. Another example is any clips selected by cable news are doubted by republicans for intentional malicious framing. Which is fair enough since I’ve seen plenty of intentionally obtuse takes of things said which are already unacceptable.
le-mark 1y ago
> stole the classified documents A nitpick of mine is how Trump having the documents wasn’t the case against him. The case against Trump was an obstruction case because he lied and concealed the documents from authorities, going so far as shuffling them between properties, having his lawyers give false statements, and defying subpoenas. This differentiates Trumps document case from everyone else’s (ie Bidens); the right loves to use this as an example of DOJ weaponization when they couldn’t be more different.
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  Yes! And when the FBI started closing in he asked his bodyguard to pull some of the documents and his IT guy to wipe the video evidence! The details are sooo much worse than the high level description can do justice.
9dev 1y ago
Isn't it curious how your comment collects downvotes, despite just stating facts.
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  Pretty much expected at this point. I'm much more worried about "Democrats are terrorists" and "terrorists don't have rights." Right now they're busy black-bagging immigrants, but I can see where this is headed.
- LexiMax 1y ago
  The biggest trick HN ever pulled was convincing people that this place was somehow uniquely resistant to systemic vote gamification.
glenstein 1y ago
>and in 2025 they are gaslighting me about ever having had those arguments at all This part is especially fascinating because I have heard of, and even had, remarkably similar experiences. The only real thing is the perpetual now. It's not even that they aren't curious or aware of what they said previously, they even emphatically deny their own words. I don't know if you remember when Ebola was a big news topic because there were two or three cases in the U.S., but I had a family member insisting it was "just the beginning" and was going to get worse. A year later he said there's "probably a lot of stuff happening that's not reported yet". Two years later he forgot he ever said it.
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  > It's not even that they aren't curious or aware of what they said previously, they even emphatically deny their own words. Tribal alignment. If the tribe had moved on from Trump and he had lost the election, your relatives would still be grounded in these conversations and reality. Trump is still the leader of their party and cultural movement, They have zero incentive to acknowledge the truth if it conflicts with these loyalties. If anything, such an action would be dangerous and risk their standing within their tribe, So the loyalty test then becomes denying what's clear and obvious to prove you are still a loyal member.
- walkabout 1y ago
  I have relatives who’ve been concerned enough about the “[democratic candidate] will take your guns!” thing that they’ve made and displayed signs about it. For multiple election cycles. That these same candidates, when elected, haven’t even attempted such a thing, even when they have an aligned Congress, doesn’t seem to register at all. They hear their lying talking heads say it again the next time, and believe it whole-heartedly. It’s so weird. You’d think at some point they’d start to wonder why it never happened.
  - aerostable_slug 1y ago
    They would do it if they had the political capital, and further they will tell you as much. Why would I not believe candidates who have spent their political life advocating the banning of the most popular rifle in America? When someone shows you what they are, believe them. If Democrats want people to stop reacting that way, they need to commit to leaving law-abiding gun owners alone, not say "well it'll be fine, believe us" yet continue to campaign for bans and pass idiotic restrictions that do little to control crime.
orionsbelt 1y ago
But his NY felony convictions were not about those cases but about paying off Stormy Daniels. That case I do think was lawfare; it was politically motivated and on similar facts would never have been brought against, as an example, Joe Biden. It’s also a very dangerous precedent to bring criminal charges against the presumptive (and in hindsight, actual) winner of the at time forthcoming presidential election, even if some of the cases have merit. Regardless of the merit of the cases, it’s impossible for that scenario to not be at least partly politically motivated and to have the effect of trying to disenfranchise half the country.
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  Thanks for reminding me, he also broke campaign finance laws with the pornstar payoff. No, if Joe Biden had the same facts against him the entire right wing -- including you -- would be eagerly prosecuting them and singing of the high-minded justice in doing so. Have you forgotten "lock her up!"? "President is above the law" is a far more dangerous precedent to set, and "nominees are above the law" is out-of-this-word nuts.
  - orionsbelt 1y ago
    Assumptions, assumptions... I am not right wing, have never voted for Trump or chanted "lock her up", and no, I believe in principles and not party loyalty and would have felt the same had it been Biden. I was also against Clinton's impeachment for the same reason. Stormy Daniels and Monica Lewinsky were both private sexual matters, and to try to use ancillary technical crimes (obstruction; campaign finance) to remove your political opponent is a bad precedent and it's bad when both parties do it. Your reply itself also proves my point. You say that the right wing would have prosecuted Biden on the same facts, not that the same left wing New York DA would have. Justice shouldn't be left wing and right wing.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - schmidtleonard 1y ago
underlipton 1y ago
I appreciate that you've been willing to do the work in this regard. A major part of the issue is people (lead, in part, by establishment Democrats) absolutely desperate to avoid rocking the boat - really a euphemism for "kicking the can on the social dislocation that's inevitably coming, and all the harder for it". It's similar to the people who push against unionization for fear of being retaliated against, only to get capriciously laid off during the next cyclical downturn. Seek your justice now, as delay is a form of denial.

adriand 1y ago

Man, that's a scary story. The Georgia thing especially is so easy to understand: just listen to the tape!

schmidtleonard 1y ago
That, and Mike Pence went on Fox News and said: > President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes.
bnjms 1y ago
I’m going to go find these recordings now. But do you, or anyone else, have a preferred location for this type of data? For example reddit is consistently an echo chamber in the reverse direction. Another example is any clips selected by cable news are doubted by republicans for intentional malicious framing. Which is fair enough since I’ve seen plenty of intentionally obtuse takes of things said which are already unacceptable.

le-mark 1y ago

> stole the classified documents A nitpick of mine is how Trump having the documents wasn’t the case against him. The case against Trump was an obstruction case because he lied and concealed the documents from authorities, going so far as shuffling them between properties, having his lawyers give false statements, and defying subpoenas. This differentiates Trumps document case from everyone else’s (ie Bidens); the right loves to use this as an example of DOJ weaponization when they couldn’t be more different.

schmidtleonard 1y ago
Yes! And when the FBI started closing in he asked his bodyguard to pull some of the documents and his IT guy to wipe the video evidence! The details are sooo much worse than the high level description can do justice.

9dev 1y ago

Isn't it curious how your comment collects downvotes, despite just stating facts.

schmidtleonard 1y ago
Pretty much expected at this point. I'm much more worried about "Democrats are terrorists" and "terrorists don't have rights." Right now they're busy black-bagging immigrants, but I can see where this is headed.
LexiMax 1y ago
The biggest trick HN ever pulled was convincing people that this place was somehow uniquely resistant to systemic vote gamification.

glenstein 1y ago

>and in 2025 they are gaslighting me about ever having had those arguments at all This part is especially fascinating because I have heard of, and even had, remarkably similar experiences. The only real thing is the perpetual now. It's not even that they aren't curious or aware of what they said previously, they even emphatically deny their own words. I don't know if you remember when Ebola was a big news topic because there were two or three cases in the U.S., but I had a family member insisting it was "just the beginning" and was going to get worse. A year later he said there's "probably a lot of stuff happening that's not reported yet". Two years later he forgot he ever said it.

throwawayq3423 1y ago
> It's not even that they aren't curious or aware of what they said previously, they even emphatically deny their own words. Tribal alignment. If the tribe had moved on from Trump and he had lost the election, your relatives would still be grounded in these conversations and reality. Trump is still the leader of their party and cultural movement, They have zero incentive to acknowledge the truth if it conflicts with these loyalties. If anything, such an action would be dangerous and risk their standing within their tribe, So the loyalty test then becomes denying what's clear and obvious to prove you are still a loyal member.
walkabout 1y ago
I have relatives who’ve been concerned enough about the “[democratic candidate] will take your guns!” thing that they’ve made and displayed signs about it. For multiple election cycles. That these same candidates, when elected, haven’t even attempted such a thing, even when they have an aligned Congress, doesn’t seem to register at all. They hear their lying talking heads say it again the next time, and believe it whole-heartedly. It’s so weird. You’d think at some point they’d start to wonder why it never happened.
- aerostable_slug 1y ago
  They would do it if they had the political capital, and further they will tell you as much. Why would I not believe candidates who have spent their political life advocating the banning of the most popular rifle in America? When someone shows you what they are, believe them. If Democrats want people to stop reacting that way, they need to commit to leaving law-abiding gun owners alone, not say "well it'll be fine, believe us" yet continue to campaign for bans and pass idiotic restrictions that do little to control crime.

orionsbelt 1y ago

But his NY felony convictions were not about those cases but about paying off Stormy Daniels. That case I do think was lawfare; it was politically motivated and on similar facts would never have been brought against, as an example, Joe Biden. It’s also a very dangerous precedent to bring criminal charges against the presumptive (and in hindsight, actual) winner of the at time forthcoming presidential election, even if some of the cases have merit. Regardless of the merit of the cases, it’s impossible for that scenario to not be at least partly politically motivated and to have the effect of trying to disenfranchise half the country.

schmidtleonard 1y ago
Thanks for reminding me, he also broke campaign finance laws with the pornstar payoff. No, if Joe Biden had the same facts against him the entire right wing -- including you -- would be eagerly prosecuting them and singing of the high-minded justice in doing so. Have you forgotten "lock her up!"? "President is above the law" is a far more dangerous precedent to set, and "nominees are above the law" is out-of-this-word nuts.
- orionsbelt 1y ago
  Assumptions, assumptions... I am not right wing, have never voted for Trump or chanted "lock her up", and no, I believe in principles and not party loyalty and would have felt the same had it been Biden. I was also against Clinton's impeachment for the same reason. Stormy Daniels and Monica Lewinsky were both private sexual matters, and to try to use ancillary technical crimes (obstruction; campaign finance) to remove your political opponent is a bad precedent and it's bad when both parties do it. Your reply itself also proves my point. You say that the right wing would have prosecuted Biden on the same facts, not that the same left wing New York DA would have. Justice shouldn't be left wing and right wing.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - schmidtleonard 1y ago

underlipton 1y ago

I appreciate that you've been willing to do the work in this regard. A major part of the issue is people (lead, in part, by establishment Democrats) absolutely desperate to avoid rocking the boat - really a euphemism for "kicking the can on the social dislocation that's inevitably coming, and all the harder for it". It's similar to the people who push against unionization for fear of being retaliated against, only to get capriciously laid off during the next cyclical downturn. Seek your justice now, as delay is a form of denial.