...that all the MAGA die-hards and even some on the fence were panning?
Eek. The New York Times just got ahold of this little diddy. And published it. Keep in mind, if it's not genuine, they just defamed a law firm, so I'll take some serious odds right now it's legit.
This is, uhm...not looking good. Welcome to Monday.
And come to the conclusion that a team of lawyers was trying to take things over. This is very clearly a law firm outlining to the president how to use his authority to shut down the democratic process in an election that he lost (And anyone who doesn't think he lost is a nutjob. Period. End of discussion.) and encouraging him to do just that.
Now, that doesn't necessarily condemn Trump as it doesn't show proof he moved to take these steps.
But this is a bad, bad look. Very, very bad people tried to overturn a fair election through any means necessary, and they have no love for our Constitution or what this nation stands for. Let's state it again. Each and every single one of the people who tried to push Trump to use his power to overturn this election are terrible people and enemies of our country.
At this point, it's indefensible. People should choose their side very deliberately and carefully. When this is all over, you're either on the side of American democracy, or you're an enemy of it.
"Now, that doesn't necessarily condemn Trump as it doesn't
Jul 17, 2022, 8:40 AM
show proof he moved to take these steps.
But this is a bad, bad look."
There's your (and Q's and Birm's} problem, right there. Once again, you cant show that Trump actually did anything, but it sure is a bad look.
quozzel's BOMBSHELL document outlines a plan that was not carried out. Somebody suggested it to Trump. Should he be condemned because somebody else makes a frightening, insane suggestion? Is Trump guilty of anything because somebody makes such a suggestion? Does the fact that it is on an official looking document make Trump guilty of anything? The answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO. This is nothing new, nothing damning in the least. If anything, this shows that Trump was not interested in anything resembling martial law, as he did not follow this plan. Olson seems legitimately convinced, at the very least, on this highly official document, that the election was stolen, and that Trump had some higher moral duty to the constitution which forbade him from acknowledging such an illegitimate election. It seems that there were a whole bunch of people who honestly believed that, people who had Trump's ear. To me, this is evidence that Trump very well may have believed that too.
We already know that there were a lot of crazy ideas floating around, and a lot of crazy people involved. If it's Trump you really want to nail, give some actual evidence of him actually doing something illegal or unconstitutional. Once again, this ain't it.
Re: "Now, that doesn't necessarily condemn Trump as it doesn't
Jul 17, 2022, 9:06 AM
I agree. The "proof" that Trump was taking these steps hasn't come out...yet.
But where do you think this is going? Because the rest of Trump's actions on 1/6 make zero sense and simply would not have had any real or lasting effect without the steps delineated in the document above. I mean, having a mob bust up Congress during the certification of the election does absolutely nothing on its own, it just creates an annoyance and a headache and a lot of broken glass and a lot of work for the grounds crew.
Why do it, then? How does that keep Trump in power, which even you can admit he was 100%, utterly laser-focused upon?
It only makes sense if you're planning on taking advantage of that chaos while the iron's hot. It's not any kind of new plan, either. Sorry.
"I mean, having a mob bust up Congress during the certification of the election does absolutely nothing on its own, it just creates an annoyance and a headache and a lot of broken glass and a lot of work for the grounds crew."
Not sure if you're trolling me, or if you're that stupid. Of course, I'm already convinced you're totally off your rocker. Your claims that Trump fully intended on murdering everybody who stood in his way did it for me, so I'll just write this off as more delusional insanity.
This post has been updated to include statements from lawmakers and a farewell memo from outgoing Defense Secretary Mark Esper. President Trump announced the firing of Defense Secretary Mark Esper in a tweet on Monday. Christopher Miller, who has been serving as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, is the new acting defense secretary …
You impugn law enforcement and the military if you think Trump had either in his back pocket. Trump could have screamed a declaration of emergency from the White House balcony on all the networks and called for martial law.
He didn't and neither the police nor the military would have listened to him.
We were never close to Trump having the support to remain in power. Had Trump had the support of the military, might he have chosen to stay in power, probably but good grief, this band of idiots that breached the Capitol were never a threat to take down the country.
That's kind of the point, man. I do think the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys intended to kill some people. That's all likely to come out at trial. Three of the Oath Keepers have already pled guilty to just that and turned on the others.
Trump knew they were there. He knew they were there because Michael Flynn and Roger Stone were directly working with those guys. It's all on tape and there's about a bazillion pics, I can post them again if you somehow missed them.
So what was the point of sending that bunch in again, after deliberately loosing the mob?
I'm not saying it necessarily would have worked - I personally think Mark Milley saw it coming a mile away and would have bucked it, putting America in an amazing pickle - but I do think that was very much the plan. We know Trump was trying to get Jeffrey Clark installed at the DOJ...in other words, over all law enforcement. (Clark got his house raided by the Feds the other day.) We know he fired Mark Esper and put loyalist Christopher Miller in charge at Defense...and usually what happens in a coup is, if the first guy won't follow your orders, you just fire that guy and work your way down until you find somebody who will. He got another loyalist Chad Wolf installed at Homeland Security, and that's another pile of portable cross-state law enforcement he'd already deployed once at the Portland riots because they were Trump guys.
Add it up and that starts looking a whole lot like a premeditated coup attempt, dude.
Coup d'état.. 101, create a huge distraction so someone(s) can slip in un-noticed and do the dirty work. Had he hired a professional and not had Stone enlist a bunch of neck-bearded botards, something might have actually come of this, but plausible deniability is the key here. It also would have required Pelosi be deaded, cause she would have been next in line to certify. I guess it is not a coincidence that more than a couple of folks wanted to, "drag her out by her hair".
agree with the above on control of the military, there would have been no civil war, just a bunch of confused cops and overweight paramilitary with outdoor privileges until this was put to bed by the folks over at Langley. Airforce 1 likely would have suffered from some malfunction over the Atlantic, or a host of other things like a bullet to the head.
Re Dood ... Oath Keepers were 7 miles away from Capitol Bldg
Sep 28, 2018, 12:38 AM
[ in reply to Re: Dood ... ]
Not that 'the Oath Keepers were deployed by DJT for insurrection' silliness again.
You know this (don't you?) that there several Oath Keepers at a hotel (Comfort Inn) in the Ballston neighborhood of Arlington, VA on Jan. 6; a weapons cache was at the hotel.
Yes indeed, this 'strategic deployment' was 7 miles away from the Capitol Building. The path to the Capitol required crossing a bridge to get to the Capitol Building.
The presence of the DJT protesters (i.e., your DJT-led "mob") led to DC police's pre-planned traffic control measures that would have severely limited the ability of the 'quick strike Delta force' Oath Keepers from 'taking over the Capitol Building.'
So why would DJT 'deploy' the Oath Keepers 7 miles away, where their driving speed would be constrained and where their 'heavy set' military marchers would have to be funneled across a long bridge (making them easy to spot, and then for counter-measures to stop them)?
Why would DJT 'organize a huge mob' in which there were 3 with weapons among 120,000 protesters, when that vert presence of the 'DJT mob' would essentially prevent DJT's 'special Delta Force the Oath Keepers' from hurrying in to complete the overthrow?
It is patently obvious that DJT had neither influence nor control over the Oath Keepers.
The theories which the lefties eat up and then propagate are absolutely ridiculous; the 'success' of those wild theories are entirely dependent upon the MSM and establishment politicians to 'validate' that lunacy.
Real and truthful journalism is dead; honor amongst politicians is nearly dead. But ya'll lefties eat this up because it is what you want to believe.
Jul 17, 2022, 8:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: Dood ... ]
How on earth did you extrapolate DJT encouraging Americans to come to Washington DC in peaceful protest (show me anywhere that DJT was exhorting citizens to come to DC to be violent) as DJT 'turning a mob loose' on the Capitol Building?
Using Mark Esper as the frame of reference? Esper wanted to do things his way, got canned by DJT for not executing an order, and Esper was vindictive in the aftermath. Sure ... that's never happened before in D.C. ... right.
Esper had execute a presidential directive for stopping the antifa / BLM riots that plagued much of the USA in 2020. (Excerpts from the few actual facts in NYT article (Nov. 11, 2020) ... between the ++++++ lines below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WASHINGTON — President Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on Monday ... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The defense secretary was aware that he was likely to be fired ... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Esper’s downfall had been expected for months, after he took the rare step of disagreeing publicly with Mr. Trump in June and saying that active-duty military troops should not be sent to control the wave of protests in American cities. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsflash: Cabinet members who do not do as told are at risk of being fired. Esper should have been fired. His approach should have been to discuss his views and means to stop the 2020 riots with the President. Taking the high handed approach that he had the authority to do whatever he pleased should have gotten him fired ... regardless of the organization in which he was employed.
And Esper is another 'smoking gun' ... how could any honest juror ever trust such a biased 'witness'?
Your whole argument hinges on an assumption that cannot be
Jul 17, 2022, 10:57 AM
proved, and there is no direct evidence of.
Pictures of Roger Stone with the Proud Boys is not evidence that Trump sent a mob in to trash congress.
Video of Flynn making speeches to the Oath Keepers is not evidence that Trump sent a mob to trash congress.
Until you can show that Trump himself directed the armed, violent storming and subsequent illegal entry of the capitol by the mob, or that he had prior knowledge of it, you have zero. Saying "He had to know", "How could he not have known", or "It just adds up" is not good enough; it doesn't work that way. Unless Flynn and Stone testify otherwise, it will be easy for Trump to deny. Posting pictures of Stone and Flynn on here attached to articles about their involvement with the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys doesn't prove or change a thing.
Re: Your whole argument hinges on an assumption that cannot be
Jul 18, 2022, 7:27 AM
Yes it does.
The president's own men were directly involved with the people being charged with seditious conspiracy.
You can choose to remain willfully blind all you want, and yes, there will have to be corroborating evidence - texts, phone recordings, video, before they can be convicted for it. But in this digital age that stuff is out there and half these guys seemed to have been recording their roles in all this for future posterity, because the Digital Age also seems to be the Narcissist Age and one of the most annoying features of social media is, half the people who partake in it seem so self-absorbed they start making their lives into this ever-ongoing self-documentary. And don't even realize they're also providing a future prosecutor with reams of evidence that can and will be used against them (and everyone else in their selfies and cell-phone videos) in a court of law.
Hey, who's that in the golf cart with Roger the morning of 1/6?
And, hey, who's that going into the Capitol a few hours later?
If I can find that in two minutes on google, what have the Feds found in eighteen months?
So according to you, now the narrative of the 'proof of Trump leading an insurrection' is no longer being related to Hitler's 1923 Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
What epiphany brought about the new Reichstag Fire analogy?
Could it have been that your previous hyperbole about DJT using the J6 protesters (with all of three armed goofballs ... none of which were inside the Capitol Building) and with Trump not being anywhere close to 'leading' these goofballs ... as being the equivalent of Hitler's Brownshirts, in which HUNDREDS armed men accompanied Hitler to storm the political meeting.
Since the DJT / J6 = Hitler / 1923 Beer Hall Putsch comparison fell flat to anyone who knows the slightest bit about both incidents, you've moved on to the next 'Trump is Hitler' deal ala Reichstag Fire.
Good heavens.
The lefties really need to find a different villain other than Hitler for being cited as the template for the Democrat party's latest Republican 'enemy.'
Reference the evil Mitt Romney (as the Democrat's 'villain of the day') back in 2012 campaign.
Romney (in 2012) was 'Hitler': The Hill Sept. 5, 2012; cut & paste between the ++++++ lines below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As Coleman referenced in his letter, Harpootlian was not the only Democrat to reference Nazism in recent days.
Pat Lehman, a delegate from Kansas, invoked Hitler while criticizing the accuracy of Romney campaign talking points.
“It’s like Hitler said: If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, and if you tell it often enough and say it in a loud enough voice, some people are going to believe you,” Lehman told the Witchita Eagle.
And John Burton, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, compared Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
“They lie and they don’t care if people think they lie … Joseph Goebbels — the big lie, you keep repeating it,” Burton told KCBS radio. “That was Goebbels, the big lie.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which is it?
(1) You choose to be blind to the facts (willful ignorance happens w. smart people; maybe this is it) or (2) You don't understand the facts (unlikely for you, as you are clearly a smart guy) or (3) You're not willing to invest the time/effort to understand the facts (I hope this is it for you) or (4) You actually know better, but choose to twist the narrative to propagate mistruths (the worst)
This 'Hitler / Nazi' stuff is really old and stale.
We're seeing more and more evidence of people surrounding Trump who urged him to take drastic, illegal, and un-Constitutional actions. That's why it's such a bad look when you take Jan. 6 into account.
Is it possible Trump is innocent? Of course. But as more comes out, it's not looking that way, and it appears information is being released slowly with a build up to something even bigger.
When you're surrounded by criminals and urged by criminals to do criminal things, and then you're front and center on stage when a horrible criminal act takes place, eventually the coincidences stop being just that.
At the end of the day, Trump could have completely prevented Jan. 6 from happening by conceding the fair election. That doesn't make him guilty of orchestrating it, but if you have the ability to stop something like that from happening, at best, morally, you're a piece of ####. At best.
We're seeing more and more evidence of people surrounding Trump who urged him to take drastic, illegal, and un-Constitutional actions. That's why it's such a bad look when you take Jan. 6 into account.
Yep, it's a bad look: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, what is your verdict?" ... "We, the jury, find Donald J. Trump GUILTY of a BAD LOOK!"LOL!
Is it possible Trump is innocent? Of course. But as more comes out, it's not looking that way, and it appears information is being released slowly with a build up to something even bigger.
Why, if they had actual evidence, would they "build up" to it? This isn't a movie or a theatrical production (or wait, is it?). No, if they had recordings, documents, or eye-witness testimony of Trump planning or dicussing an armed violent insurrrection, they would have presented it on day one. There would have been no need for a "build up", and it would have been case closed. There would be no need to save anything for the final act. They are presenting 3rd hand testimony of Trump lunging for a guy's clavicles because they don't yet have anything solid or conclusive. If they do have something truly damning and conclusive, and they are holding it back for effect, then even more shame on them. Sahme, shame, shame.
When you're surrounded by criminals and urged by criminals to do criminal things, and then you're front and center on stage when a horrible criminal act takes place, eventually the coincidences stop being just that.
That's not an unreasonable position at all. The problem is, that assumption, that kind of reasoning is not nearly enough to convict anybody in the U.S. of a crime, much less a former President. There is still a burden of proof, and that bar should, and will be high in this case. Higer than anything we've seen so far.
At the end of the day, Trump could have completely prevented Jan. 6 from happening by conceding the fair election. That doesn't make him guilty of orchestrating it, but if you have the ability to stop something like that from happening, at best, morally, you're a piece of ####. At best.
The election was not fair because several of the states had submitted their electors despite the fact that those states did not follow their own election procedures, as per their state constitutions.
That means that those states' electors are not legitimate.
An election in which there are illegitimate electors from enough states to change the outcome of an election is an illegitimate election.
THAT is why DJT was correct in challenging the election, instead of simply whimpering away in Mitt Romney or Bob Dole fashion.
The Trump admin challenged the election in multiple courts, even some tried by their own appointed judges, and they were all tossed out. When they couldn't win legally (because they had no legal case), they took more drastic measures.
People who think the election wasn't fair can't be taken seriously on anything on this topic going forward.
that is right, your guns can get confiscated, among other things like food and water. Trump, had things gone to plan, could have taken your civil liberties—such as the right to free movement, free speech, protection from unreasonable searches, and habeas corpus laws.
What is even scarier than trump's half assed attempt to seize permanent power is that there were even more powerful forces on the far right pulling the strings. Their plans have not changed. It explains why nut jobs like Walker and Marjorie Taylor are being propped up, because they are stupid, incompetent, and will stand on the sidelines. It is too bad that our campaign finance laws have become so convoluted that we if we really tried, could never figure out where this money is coming from
from some obscure Washington DC law firm - it is also irrelevant. None of the actions outlined in this memo beyond the opening 2 paragraphs ever occurred nor is there any indication they were ever attempted. In fact, there is no proof that President Trump even saw/read the memo and if he did, tried to implement the suggestions therein. To the contrary - the fact that Trump did NONE of the things outlined in that memo highly suggests that he ultimately sided with the AG's office and essentially ignored it.
At some point we all have to step back, take a breath, and judge things based on what actually happened. If former President Trump broke the law and committed crimes, then let the cards fall where they may. However, it is the responsibility of the DOJ to investigate and prosecute the violation of law based on the facts and evidence they can gather, prove, and present in a court of law. I have zero doubt that the current partisans in the DOJ will hesitate to prosecute Donald Trump if they have the goods.
But what is happening right now is we have a rogue Congressional panel consisting of 100% political opponents of Donald Trump trying to mix tales of hearsay and innuendo with bits of cherry picked/out of context facts in order to make a criminal case. This "investigation" started with a pre-determined outcome in the greatest traditions of a Soviet Union show trail. It has been about "getting Trump" since the day it was formed and if they have to mute/ignore conflicting information or exculpatory evidence or even throw out a blatant falsehood to do it - so be it. They have no credibility with half the country and are simply staging Trump impeachment part 3 for the Trump hating echo chamber.
As for me, I will wait to see what the DOJ does and tune out all the other J6 committee contrived "bombshell" noise. Even though I believe the DOJ to be a politicized institution, at least I know they will have to survive opposition scrutiny of any charge they pursue against Trump and because of that are less likely to throw out BS crafted accusations.
Sure. This is ultimately the Committee trying to make a legal case. But no, sorry, it's not a Soviet show trial. Utterly disagree with you there. If Trump's taking an absolute beating by the Committee right now, it's his own d#%^ fault. The Republicans walked off the Committee in a huff when Pelosi declined to allow people like Jim Jordan who were at best material witnesses in it to not serve on the panel and apparently decided to rely on Fox News to carry Trump's water rather than allow a bipartisan panel to reveal exactly what's coming out of it now. But yeah, ultimately the test of the validity of it is going to be proven or disproven in courtrooms. They don't have the power to prosecute.
If you're stupid enough to cede the battlefield to your opponent, don't blame your opponent for then taking control of it. This public beatdown is 100% on McCarthy and Trump.
Do you...think "Team Crazy" is going to do better in courtrooms, though? Because I don't. Rudy's "Legal Elite Strike Team" went 1-for-61 on election challenges and I suspect their record in these eminent criminal trials isn't likely to improve much.
My further suspicion is that a whole lot of these guys aren't even going to risk it when it comes to court trials, though. When it comes to it, most of them are going to plead out and turn on the others, especially when it becomes obvious the cavalry ain't coming and there's no magic pardons waiting this time around to anyone who stays loyal to the Boss.
The fact that there was planned and premeditated hijinks was a mystery to nobody. I mean, Steve Bannon was doing the upcoming play-by-play before the election ever happened. The only real question is how deep does this rabbit hole of pretty obvious - and again, demonstrably premeditated - criminality go?
Q we will just have to agree to disagree on the J6 committee
Jul 17, 2022, 10:42 AM
You believe they are a truth seeking body uncovering damning information. I simply do not. In my view the J6 committee IS a show trial that is being choreographed to produce a specific result - they even hired a former TV show producer to help them with their presentation. I've laid out my reasons before but simply put, I don't trust this committee's intentions, methods or commitment to truth nor do I trust most of the members on it (Raskin is a 2nd generation leftist radical and Schiff is a proven liar).
Before I get accused of being a blind "Trumper" - I don't really care about Donald Trump as a person or a politician. I find him to be an undisciplined egotistical blowhard that runs his mouth when he ought to shut-up in many cases. I do, however, prefer the Trump Administrations policies to those of the Democrats (immigration, energy, and trade) but if Trump goes to jail or is put into political exile - I really could not care less. But I do care about due process, honesty, and actual fact finding that isn't pre-determined or afraid of opposing testimony and questioning - something that this January 6th committee lacks altogether.
Ultimately I think the crux of the disagreement between those hanging on every word of the J6 Committee and those of us who are largely yawning at it boils down to how one views the events of January 6th.
From my POV, the events at the Capital building on January 6th by a bunch of Trump zealots was an act of extreme idiocy but that's about it. No matter how badly the Democrats try to spin events - I simply do not buy that the illegal trespassing of the Capital by a bunch of emotionally charged, untrained and unarmed protesters constituted an actual insurrection OR that our nations continued constitutional order was ever in danger or doubt. Was their behavior misguided, despicable and illegal? Absolutely... but an insurrection?? Nope I'm not buying it. An insurrection requires logistics, planning, organization, and a well armed and trained uprising that threatens the stability of the Government. The stability and safety of our Government was never in doubt on January 6th. I've seen real insurrectionists (i.e. the FARC in Colombia) and that group of idiots walking around in the Capital building on January 6th ain't it...
Fella, I disagree vociferously with Smiling Tiger and tabby on this issue and I believe what we saw was very much the definition of a seditious conspiracy and an attempt to seize power...but Smiling and tabby are assuredly not "trash".
I can argue vehemently with them without hating them or disparaging them.
That kind of vitriol and us-and-them partisanship is just not...productive. I don't enjoy being on opposite sides of the fence from these guys because I agree with them on more issues than I don't, but believing that somebody's absorbed just way too much Fox News and is minimizing a direct assault on democracy as a result is a mile from believing they personally are "trash".
Populists win with such black-and-white tribal tactics. Logic and discussion overcomes it. These guys are not lost causes.
90% of his voters are trash (with a healthy overlap of morons), 5% of his voters are just morons (but not trash), and 5% of his voters voted for him by accident.
Thus, 1 out of 10 of his voters MIGHT be a decent person.
It'd be convenient if that were true, wouldn't it? But it isn't.
Trump supporters are the same people they were 6 or even 10 years ago, they've just been radicalized by populist rhetoric.
Now here's the real question Dems should ask themselves - and don't - why is the Trump base so susceptible to that rhetoric? And it isn't because they're "bad people", for the most part. What's changed to sour Trump supporters on the idea of democracy and the direction of America? Because the populist bag is, you fill the base with mortal terror, instill and us-and-them mentality and the notion that the them is coming for you, your money, your children, and your way of life, and only I the strongman is mean and nasty and most of all, effective enough to make them stop. So follow me, I'll put the bad people in their place.
And along came 1/6. It was purely a function of populism and populistic propaganda. So too are all these arguments, that somehow this wasn't what it actually looked like or was somehow just not that terrible or the direct attack on democracy itself that it actually was - I mean, once you overturn an election or even try to, you've crossed that Rubicon and there is just no coming back - but underneath all that is the unspoken-but-ever-present belief that the folks who crossed that like were at least somewhat justified in doing so.
But what you haven't answered is: why are the Trump supporters so estranged from the other half of society to begin with? Populism only works if there's something to work on. It's just con men like Trump and fork-tongued propagandists like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity reading the room.
It's called human nature and idealism. Most politically active Pubs and Dems have spent their entire lives demonizing the other side to the point where they become incapable of seeing politics any different than how we root for our teams on Saturday afternoons in the fall. Seeing how "Christian conservatives" have embraced and defended Trump, a con man who has pissed their face and wiped his @$$ with their "values", is truly fascinating and will be the subject of human psychology for centuries to come.
ArchieOCampbell how about post your resume so we can all see how virtuous you are - you must volunteer, say, 20 or 30 hours/week? While you are at it, how about post your tax returns so we can see your charitable contributions.
And, tell us how you are helping thwart climate change? You get some LED bulbs? Ride in the car with your AC off?
What would have happened if this angry mob who had no issue beating police officers with poles and hockey sticks would have gotten their hands on Pelosi or Pence? Think they would have survived getting smacked in the head with a hockey stick?
Since just a few days before you said anyone who thinks Trump might have had anything to do with Jan. 6, what, "emotionally immature" or something like that along with a slew of other names?
Instead of, you know, saying, "Hey, I have doubts but I'm willing to hear out the evidence and keep an open mind in this investigation".
Looks like you have the confirmation bias pretty bad, too.
Re: Remember that martial law part of Trump's plan...
Jul 17, 2022, 9:13 AM
A waste of time. This is meaningless. The fact that you guys get a boner off this stuff reveals how TDS, apparently, has blinded you from reality. You people have spent a gazillion cycles thinking and talking about chit that never happened.
Re: Remember that martial law part of Trump's plan...
Jul 17, 2022, 9:16 AM
I don't support Trump's actions to try to hang on to power after the election. He hung out with some really weird enabling folks such as UNC Law's finest grad--Sidney Powell and apparently took advice from the less than stellar law firm of William Olson. Ok he took advice and did what? Granted I think Trump considered virtually every possible way to stay in office, but in the end, he stepped down thanks to Pence.
After all that has thus far been presented, do you honestly feel Trump will end up going to prison?
I don't want Trump back in the White House for a number of reasons. I hope a true conservative with minimal baggage is elected, unlike Trump who is simply an opportunist selling himself as a conservative, but wouldn't hold my breath waiting on an indictment much less a conviction over the events after the election.
Re: Remember that martial law part of Trump's plan...
Jul 17, 2022, 9:46 AM
I don't know if Trump himself goes to prison, just because he's going to be incredibly hard to convict...not due to evidence, by the time it gets that far there's going to be a pile of evidence the size of a phone book, and no real defense for any of it. Trump certainly won't take the stand because they'll turn him into a gibbering inchoate baboon on the stand and catch him on one of about a million glaring lies if he goes anywhere near it, it'd be like watching Shaq dunk on toddlers. And if he overrides his lawyer and wanders up there because, well, he's Trump...cover your eyes, kids. It's gonna be bad.
(Insert the soundbyte of that kid from Jurassic Park here: "So much blood.")
But I can't even imagine the pressure there's likely to be on a jury. All it takes is one True Believer MAGA on the jury who refuses to listen to the evidence to hang it.
That's my real fear, that Trump's divided us to the point that even a mountain of evidence won't matter anymore. At which point America is divided beyond repair, and will no longer have the power to save itself. If a sufficiently immoral populist can stand above the law, the law isn't worth the paper it's written on. That's how banana republics die.
It's a coin flip at best right now. And that scares the $^&$ out of me. Hopefully as things progress the tide will turn and it'll be far more of a foregone conclusion.
I do think everyone around Trump is fried, though. The Feds are gonna roll the Team Crazy turkeys up and massacre them wholesale. That act is pretty much already written.
Another piece of hyperbolic 'DJT is responsible for everything divisive' nonsense.
Lefties heroes Obama 'antipathy for white people' and would be hero Hillary (only reason she's not a hero is because she blew the 2016 election) with her 'deplorables' labels on Americans.
Re: Remember that martial law part of Trump's plan...
Jul 17, 2022, 9:31 AM
Here's an example of something worth spending time on. An audio tape of your guy probably conducting illegal activities. You see the difference right - when the person accused is actually recorded doing the illegal activity as opposed to someone claiming they saw or heard about it.
50
