Cassidy Hutchinson. A true American hero

I don't know what the fellow you are rebutting is arguing, but I'm not arguing Trump is openly wanting to be dictator, though it's not a stretch to conclude Trump envied Dictators and their lack of having to appeal the rule of law. That point is really a red herring to more salient facts.

But, here's what I'm arguing:

Trump chose to ignore several credible sources, including the Attorney general, WH Counsel Pat Cipollone, give heed to a drunken Giuliani, an indicted fool named Bannon, a weasel named Steven Miller, and an indicted Roger Stone, not to mention Meadows is a sycophant incapable of standing up to Trump. History proves that those chiefs of staff who were capable of standing up to Trump were fired or forced to resign. A president has a responsibility to know the difference between competent advice and incompetent advice. See, he, being incompetent, favors incompetent advisors over competent ones. All of his competent selections, he either fired or regretted their appointments, while retaining all the incompetents.

Moreover, and here is the clincher:

"Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen," --Trump

That quote was written on Donahue's contemporaneous notes. That quote betrays any notion that he was sincere in a belief of any kind, because the quote reveals that he didn't care what the truth was.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/30/politics/trump-election-justice/index.html

"These handwritten notes show that President Trump directly instructed our nation's top law enforcement agency to take steps to overturn a free and fair election in the final days of his presidency," House Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney said in a statement.

The comparison between Trump and Gore is a false equivalency. Gore's attempts were brief and he conceded soon after the election, and he said he conceded because a long drawn out fight over the presidency was not in the best interest of the nation. Not so with Trump. A long drawn out fight, though it certainly isn't in the nation's best interest, is not a problem for Trump, who will quite easily put party, and himself, above country. Trump has never conceded, and he continues to deny he lost to this very day, and he and his surrogates engaged in over 60 lawsuits, and lost all but one, and the one he did win was on a minor issue.

Unlike Gore, Trump engaged in an unlawful fake electors scheme. Yes, it wasn't legal because:

1. There is no legal process to establish contingency standby electors.
2. The documents used in the fake electors scheme, owing to the scheme not being legal, are therefore considered to be forged documents.

Unlike Gore, Trump and his surrogates contacted the election officials of several states in order to get them to decertify their elections and/ or attempted to get them to replace Biden electors with his electors. These acts are illegal in most states ( as far as I know) We have the recording of his calling GA Secy Of State, where he asked Raffensperger for 11,780 votes, which happened to be one more needed in order to win. That is a damning phone call. Raffensperger told Trump that the stories of fraud some people were telling him were false, that there was no merit to their claims, and he still ignored Raffensperger.

Unlike Gore, Trump tried to fire the Acting AG ( Rosen, noting that Barr quit only a month out from the end of Trump's term. Why did he do that? Because of this illegal scheme of which he wanted not to be a part of and all the claims of bogus fraud). Trump tried to replace Rosen with Clark, an environmental lawyer who had no qualifications, who was willing to put forth the letter Trump had drafted the scheme of which was to send tje letter to Brian Kemp, Georgia Governor, the GA speaker of the house, whereby the letter stated that the DOJ was investigating the election for fraud, blah blah blah. Moreover, the reason Trump decided not to install Clark was because all of the key leadership just below the Acting AG told Trump they would resign, en masse, and Cipilone convinced him that this would be a grave error, on the order of the "Saturday night massacre" of Watergate. He would have done it but for the threat of resignations. This scheme the reason why the FBI raided Clark's home, and confiscated Eastman's Iphone ( who was the architect of the election subversion scheme).

Unlike Gore, Trump has been trying to subvert the 2020 election for about 2 years now.

Unlike Gore, The senate judiciary committee is investigating Trump's subversion, and put out an interim report:

Unlike Gore, Trump has engaged in witness intimidation, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress (source, Mueller Report with more witness intimidation in the 1/6 committee hearings).

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

Unlike Gore, we have an investigation into Jan 6, which would not have occurred but for Trump whose indefatigable harangues to his base that dems stole the election, whose whipping up his base up on jan 6 with declarations of 'you got to fight like hell, so march to the capitol and stop the steal', whose many rallies telling his base that dems stole the election, dems rigged the election, of which no credible evidence has ever been submitted to any court of law, which resulted in a volcanic eruption of a juggernaut of rage on jan 6 with chants of 'Hang Mike Pence' and "Stop The Steal", notingi that Trump declared a year before the first ballot was cast, that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election'.

And after the election, noting that all elections have irregularities, he exploited those irregularities to claim that these were examples of fraud that he had warned his base about, knowing that his base would not be able to make the distinction between normal irregularities common to all elections, and bona fide fraud. the point being Trump has been shouting 'dems stole the election' a year before the election and now a year or more after the election, and by that fact, priming the pump whereby his base will believe him, this fact has shaken the confidence in AMerican democracy to some 65 million people, a feat of epic level damage to America's core value, democracy, achieved by no president in history.

And there you sit, utterly oblivious of these facts, and attempt to compare Gore to Trump?

I don't think so.

 

yep, I did, early on I supported Trump, but then when the truth about him came out, I stopped supporting him... that is what moral people do

 

were talking about when he was impeached.... quid pro quo

but the Trump Tower meeting happened too, we have his son's emails

 

Apparently you don't

why the spin??

yes, the committee has the power to select..

but obviously does not have the power to force mark meadows, jimshort jordan or anybody else from pleading the 5TH

I was given 2 choices for president...

one a career politician that has been under scrutiny for 40 years..and 8 of those years was scandal free while he had the front row seat watching the first black man be president of the country for 8 years .. this man is married to a school teacher, and one son was a military veteran and died of cancer ..yes the other son was a disaster that was controlled by drugs...like any father ..he no doubt tried to protect his offfspring...he could not save one son from cancer or the other from drug addiction... Lightloafers Lyndsy Graham said Joe Biden was as decent a human being as God ever made ,,,

my other choice was a game show host that bilked millions from the working Americans at trump university...he had to settle for $25 million
this guy is married to a foreign born beauty queen that cannot speak english without an accent...his kids are decent enough, but none served the country or in the military...this guy also admitted he has sexual fantasies for his own daughter...Lightloafers Lyndsey Graham said the GOP has went BAT$hit crazy when trump won the GOP nomination

obviously, you have decided you prefer the latter

we all know which way your moral compass points

kinda sad

 

What I posted is pretty straightforward and any child should be able to understand it. You invent/imply crapola I never posted then claim my "mind-reading reading skills are not sharp" based on YOUR crapola. Not playing your idiotic game sonny go back to kissing your psychotic hero's substantial rump. Keep making believe that scumbag actually cares about the Constitution and the law he has no clue about.

 

I was rebutting the notion that he tried to make himself dictator.

Looking at your wall of text, in all sincerity, I did not bother to read it. Sometimes brevity is the soul of wit, and your long-winded recitation is not necessary for the central point of mine to which you are replying.

For everything that you are accusing him of trying to do, logic says that he would have had to believe that he had some chance at success. That chance is undoubtedly rooted in the hope that his legal argument would be accepted. If his legal argument was not accepted, he would not have retained the Presidency. It truly is as simple as that.

For all of the bluster coming from the left that we almost lost our Demcoracy etc, the reality is that he would have only retained the presidency if his legal argument passed constitutional muster. That would not be an example of our Democracy failing, rather it would be an example of it operating as intended. He wasnt trying to illegally seize the Presidency, rather he was trying a long-shot legal argument that would have bought him more time and or kept him as President.

There is nothing illegal about putting forth a legal argument that fails. Presidents are shot down in the courts quite regularly. Boris Johnson made reference to this same over dramatizing in regards to the stability of our democracy in his recent interview with Jake Tapper. It was never in danger, not even slightly.

The comparison to Gore was only to the extent that they both tried long shot legal arguments to win the Presidency. In truth, I dont think either one had a legit chance at success.

 

Your mind reading skills to which I referenced were on display when you said...." Trump doesn't read much less even understand the Constitution. He doesn't give a flying **** about the Constitution or the law"

Yes, that statement IS presuming to know what is in his mind.

...and yes, being that the conversation was about him trying to retain the Presidency, in order for his ploy to work it would have absolutely required that his legal argument pass legal muster. Since you have declared that he does not care about the law, using the transitive property, yes, you must be concluding that he thought he was going to remain in office despite being shot down in the courts. That is obviously not a logical conclusion, as his goal was undeniably to remain in office, and remaining in office without the backing of the law would require a military that would enforce this coup which he undoubtedly did not have at his disposal.

THEREFORE, your ability to read his mind is either faulty, OR you have to believe that he mistakenly thought he could remain in office despite the law not backing him up. One can absolutely despise Trump, think he is a blowhard etc, but it is not truly credible to act as if he is incapable of understanding that a single person cannot ignore the law and just remain in office and thus bring down that Democracy without the backing of a military of some sort.

I personally could not care less whether you try to rebut my argument. My point stands regardless. Your position that he does not care about the law is wholly illogical. Of course he cares about the law because he cared about remaining President. Whether you understand or refuse to refute that notion is of no consequence whatsoever.

 

It's probable cause for the DOJ to subpoena all concerned parties.

If confirmed, it will be worth something.

 

Which I acknowledge, though it's not a stretch to claim Trump envies dictators.

Then I won't read yours, because I did make a valid point. Read it and rebut, and I'll do the same, otherwise, dismissed.

 

By repeating second hand information in a congressional hearing?

 

OK, I read your whole post.

You are taking the Gore comparison far too literally. The only comparison I made was loose, and that was that they both tried legal maneuvering in order to win the Presidency. Beyond that, I am not claiming any further similarities. One could write 1000 pages on how their situations are different. I fail to see the reason or purpose for doing so.

-As far as Trump envying dictators? Hmmm. I do not pretend to read minds. I could also conclude that Biden envies dictators too and make a justification for it as well. Such a declaration and subsequent reasoning means nothing.

 

Well, this didn't age well. Seems that most of her super "devastating" claims are simply untrue. Perhaps we should see who paid her to provide this perjury to congress. Perhaps Liz et al? Clearly, it also appears that Liz et al knew she was lying. Yikes. So, golly. what now?

 

She lied? Is that what you are referring to as "probable cause"?

 

Until now any repercussions were a matter of a republican popularity contest. Until now, we assumed that at least a few republicans would be honorable and do the right thing. Clearly there are no republican "leaders" left with any honor.

Luckily a 26 yo woman had more balls than all of the men leading the republican party.

 

I looked through your thread creation history, and found your posting prior to the 2016 election.


This was clearly a very anti Trump thread, plus all of your past posting clearly supports the left.
When exactly are you claiming to have supported Trump?
Trump boots crying baby from rally | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

 

Both the left and the right tend to stand behind their own, thus, your task is NOT to convince Republicans, rather it is to convince the middle to give your position an overwhelming preponderance of support. You failed to convince the middle. You have not even come close.

 

She didn't.

 

No it depended on a bunch of corrupt Republican Senators, nothing more. Until now it has all been political.

THIS time the law matters. That has never been true before because you can't prosecute a sitting president. And removing him from office depended on corrupt republican senators.

You should really pay more attention. You don't even understand the most basic elements of the fiasco trump.

 

You are mirroring....

 

Public opinion forces the hand of Senators and any other elected official. That is how a representatyive democracy works. If you have sufficient public support, the Senators have no choice but to fall in line.

When it comes to supporters, both the left and the right tend to stand behind their own, thus, your task is NOT to convince Republicans, rather it is to convince the middle to give your position an overwhelming preponderance of support. You failed to convince the middle. You have not even come close. This statement also applies to the current 1/6 hysteria nonsense. It has failed miserably. All they have proven is that if you control the House you can investigate endlessl, not msattert how nonsensical that investigation may be.

 

your analogy does not hold water

she testified what she saw "first hand".

Yea the steering wheel incident was hearsay..but her other testimony was her first hand knowledge

She is just one of many that have testified trump is a madman ..

only a madman could lie to congress and the entire country without fear, remorse or regret.

My guess is being only 25 she has not had time enough to become a corrupt and ruthless republican

give her a few years and she will be able to give the ole reach around and pick the pockets of Americans that are tomorrow"s version of ignorant trump supporters that need a leader

 

your analogy does not hold water

she testified what she saw "first hand".

Yea the steering wheel incident was hearsay..but her other testimony was her first hand knowledge

She is just one of many that have testified trump is a madman ..

only a madman could lie to congress and the entire country without fear, remorse or regret.

My guess is being only 25 she has not had time enough to become a corrupt and ruthless republican

give her a few years and she will be able to give the ole reach around and pick the pockets of Americans that are tomorrow"s trump supporters

 

So you are suggesting she was in the car? The person whose account she repeated wasn't in the car either. Pardon me for snickering. You should be embarrassed that you fell for this.

 

the car incident is NOT important in any form or fashion
Every witness has been from team trump and all concur that trump is insane

trump is not guilty by reason of insanity

 

You should study the definition of the legal terms you're trying to apply.