Stunningly, Trump Admits The Goal Was To Overturn The Election
If you give a narcissistic moron enough rope , eventually they will incriminate themselves. That appears to be what happened today as Donald Trump released a statement indicating he wanted Mike Pence to overturn the election results on Jan 6 and name him the winner.
========================================================================================
Olivia of Troye
@OliviaTroye
Trump boasting in his latest statement: the goal was to overturn the election—after touting at his rally that he’ll pardon Jan 6 insurrectionists. Every Republican candidate & official should go on record with their answer: Do you support sedition & pardoning domestic terrorists?
================================================================================
If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had “absolutely no right” to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!
This is, of course, far from the first time Trump has attacked his own former VP for refusing to ignore the Constitution and federal law to throw out validly cast and certified votes in states that went to Joe Biden .
Just a few days ago during a Fox News appearance, Pence admitted that he and Trump had not spoken since last summer .
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 was cited in memos drafted by Trump advisers after he lost the 2020 election, claiming that Pence could summarily reject certified slates of electors from states that voted for Biden, and then either recognize “alternate slates” of electors from those states, or just refuse to include those states in the overall Electoral College count, and thereby give Trump the majority.
This law is presumably the subject of Trump’s complaint in his latest “Statement,” and despite Trump’s protestations to the contrary, it does not actually grant any powers that would have allowed Pence to have “change[d] the outcome” or “overturned the Election!” as Trump claims. Efforts are underway to revise the federal statute to be even more clear and affirmatively state that this sort of nonsense is not allowed.
Former Pence Homeland Security adviser Olivia Troye was scathing in her reaction to Trump’s latest attack on her former boss, noting that Trump was “boasting” that “the goal was to overturn the election” just one day after “ touting at his rally that he’ll pardon Jan. 6 insurrectionists ,” and saying that GOP candidates should have to “go on record” with whether or not they agreed with Trump.
Tags
Who is online
442 visitors
Tell us again how innocent Trump is.
Oh I'm sure they will
After all, the actual facts have never been a barrier for the MAGA-cultists.
(Who prefer the "Alternative facts-- AKA blatant lies!!)
I'm not sure anybody thinks he's "innocent" in the character sense of the word.
Tell us what crime you think he's committed or specific law he broke during all this.
There are MILLIONS of people who believe that the election was stolen from Trump and that he is not only innocent, but that he is righteous.
I think you WANT to believe that 'insanity' is not rampant on the Trump right, and so you talk yourself into believing it.
Americans DO have to pick sides.
=================================================================
Adam Kinzinger
@AdamKinzinger
·
19h
“He could have overturned the election.”
This is an admission, and a massively un-American statement. It is time for every Republican leader to pick a side… Trump or the Constitution, there is no middle on defending our nation anymore.
That would not describe any of the many Trump supporters I know. They know he's a bastard. That's part of why they like him.
Ironic that you would use a(nother) nearly insane rant to accuse other people of insanity.
You didn't answer my question. What crime was committed/law was broken?
The majority of Americans did pick a side. They chose Biden over Trump.
However "pick a side" does NOT mean they must adopt anti-Trumpism as their new religion and pursue it with maniacal zealotry.
And there we have what we always get - excuses.
People do have to adopt anti-Trumpism.
failure to do so is un-American.
There is nothing at all "insane" about my rants. They are all fact based. As far as him breaking a specific law, there are plenty of legal experts that say he has broken laws in all this. But if he didnt break a specific law, so what? It is as plain as day that he intended to steal the election. The evidence is overwhelming.
The deniers dont care enough about their country.
Get back to us when you can explain any of the facts of this case with even a glaze of credibility or knowledge.
Just flapping your lips doesnt cut it.
The truth is you cant.
If you could you would have at some point over the past few years.
Everyone here can see what you are. That is enough.
Which one(s)?
Here. Let me help. Finish this sentence. "We the jury find Donald Trump guilty of ____________________?" Insert as many as you think apply.
Exactly. If he didn't break the law, you're seeding a story about him admitting he didn't break the law. There is a congressional commission investigating him not breaking the law.
To my knowledge, he's been very open about his attempts to overturn the election. One doesn't need a ton of evidence to confirm something a person announces they're doing.
You would need evidence to prove that he broke the law during those attempts.
Of course you tend to classify anybody who isn't actively carrying a pitchfork and torch on their way to Mar A Lago as a "denier".
However most people have simply moved on.
Some people have moved on. Trumps mllions of followers and admirers have not moved on. How can someone who wanted to overthrow the US election and the US government have millions of followers?
And more do so every day.
To the contrary. Many of them have.
I'm probably not the person to ask. I'm not sure how he ever had followers in the first place.
But then I'm not sure how Bernie, AOC, MTG, Gohmert, Waters and a host of others have any followers. People believe crazy stuff.
So now Trump is just one of the crowd. There is no end to the excuse making, is there?
No, those other people are still in office. They're more dangerous.
*eyeroll*
"Nothing at all insane" about your rants..... Riiiight.
BTW, you still haven't answered my very simple question.
What crime did he commit? What law did he break?
Why is it so difficult for you to answer that question?
Is that supposed to be clever ?
Isnt trying to overthrow the US government crime enough for you?
Sorry if I'm not perfectly educated on American constitutional law, but didn't the impeachments convict him of crimes, that the Republicans pardoned?
No, impeachment is the equivalent of indictment for crimes, or impeachable offenses.
The trials of the impeachments were held in the Senate, where Trump was not convicted because a vote of two-thirds of the Senators is required to convict.
A majority of Senators, including seven Republicans, did vote to convict Trump in his second Senate impeachment trial, but that is insufficient.
"Pardon" is not a concept applicable to the impeachment process.
Okay, thanks for the law lesson. A GREATER majority is needed to convict, and a simple majority, even including votes against him from his own party, enables him to walk. Lucky him.
You're welcome.
A simple majority in the House is needed to impeach. A supermajority in the Senate is needed to convict.
The idea is that we don’t want simple partisanship to be the reason a president is removed. It needs to be significantly bipartisan. Otherwise, simple legislative majorities would be removing the president and overturning elections all the time.
If he committed a crime, then a law was broken.
What. Law. Did. He. Break?
Trump told Giuliani to call the Department of Homeland Security to see if they could 'take control of voting machines': NYT report
Former President Donald Trump played a role in plans for seizing voting machines in the 2020 election.
Trump asked Rudy Giuliani to call DHS about confiscating voting machines, The New York Times reported.
Trump weighed the prospect of using the military or the Justice Department to obtain the machines.
Former President Donald Trump asked Rudy Giuliani, his attorney, to call the Department of Homeland Security to see if they could legally take control of voting machines in key states in December 2020, six weeks after the Presidential election, The New York Times reported.
Giuliani called Kenneth Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, who told him he did not have the authority to do so, the Times reported.
Yes John, we sure do.
"Otherwise, simple legislative majorities would be removing the president and overturning elections all the time."
Nonsense.
And what part of the criminal code does that violate?
Nonsense.
Here's the easy one Jack:
"We the jury find Donald Trump guilty of Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, under Title § 21-2-604 of the Georgia criminal code."
There are a plethora of other possibilities, including but not limited to:
Multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud the US.
Conspiracy to commit Abuse of office.
Conspiracy to commit election fraud AND forgery in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia and New Mexico.
Yes, that's what you spout in this regard in your never ending defense of the criminal enterprise of the trumpturd 'presidency'
Trump's Words, and Deeds, Reveal Depths of His Drive to Retain Power
A series of new remarks by Donald Trump about the aftermath of the 2020 election and new disclosures about his actions in trying to forestall its result — including discussing the use of the national security apparatus to seize voting machines — have stripped away any pretense that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, were anything but the culmination of the former president’s single-minded pursuit of retaining power.
Trump said on Sunday that Mike Pence “could have overturned the election,” acknowledging for the first time that the aim of the pressure campaign he focused on his vice president had simply been to change the election’s result, not just to buy time to root out supposed fraud, as he had long insisted. Those efforts ended at the Capitol with a violent riot of Trump supporters demanding that Pence block the Electoral College vote.
Over the weekend, Trump also dangled, for the first time, that he could issue pardons to anyone facing charges for participating in the Jan. 6 attack if he is elected president again — the latest example of a yearslong flirtation with political violence.
And, ignoring what happened the last time he encouraged a mass demonstration, Trump urged his supporters to gather “in the biggest protests we have ever had” if prosecutors in New York and Atlanta moved further against him. The prosecutor examining Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in Georgia immediately asked the FBI to conduct a “risk assessment” of her building’s security.
The events of Jan. 6 played out so publicly and so brutally — the instigating speech by Trump, the flag-waving march to the Capitol, the violent clashes with the police, the defiling of the seat of democracy — and have since been so extensively reexamined that at times it can seem as if there were little more to be discovered about what led up to that day.
Then, The New York Times reported this week that Trump had directed his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to ask the Department of Homeland Security whether it could legally seize voting machines in three key swing states. Trump also raised, in an Oval Office meeting with Attorney General William Barr, the possibility of the Justice Department’s seizing the machines.
Both ideas quickly fizzled.
With all that he has done and said - still folks seem to think
As of Dec. 2021, 5 GOP legislatures had already passed legislation that insert themselves as a 'partisan election review' that could and would overturn the certified results of an election.
"And what part of the criminal code does that violate?"
Thank you.
Seriously.
Finally, a response that isn't just hysterical ranting.
Serious questions, how likely do you think it is that he'll be charged, which of those do you think is most likely, and how do you assess the amount of time that has passed with no charges levied yet?
So you don't know.
You're welcome, Jack.
As I noted, the Georgia case seems a slam dunk to me. The AG has Trump violating the law in his own words and testimony from the other principles who stated that they felt that Trump was trying to get them to overturn the election. The Special Grand Jury will help the AG hone her case and get her ducks in a row. That information can also be shared with the DOJ and the Jan. 6 Committee if they ask nicely. Hopefully, the AG will submit a crapload of evidence with her indictment and save them the ask.
That shit takes time. I worked as a paralegal on a Federal EEOC case, the event in question took place over just 15 minutes. Still, it took 8 months just to take depositions. In that case, none of the 'actors' ignored subpoenas, nor did the government refuse to release documents.
As long as they don't get within a week of the statute of limitations, it's all good IMHO.
My thought has been that if they would have charged him by now if they had a "slam dunk", so to speak.
But I'll defer to your experience on that.
Well this isn't an everyday case Jack.
The Georgia AG is taking on the daunting task of prosecuting Trump. And unlike in most other cases, she has to deal with the fact that she, her staff, the court and the jurors will be under the highest of scrutiny AND under physical threat.
That's a butt load of responsibility and a logistical nightmare. It's going to cost the people of Georgia a pretty penny, in extra security alone, to prosecute Trump. Trump has already called on his minions to target anyone who prosecutes him. There will probably be a lot of people getting fitted for bullet proof vests.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ61UgHPxhGnoAdSJXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1643941024/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.aol.com%2fstates-seek-protect-election-workers-150006669-163642484.html/RK=2/RS=9oGLk28FLfi8iSOur1BtJRcdCcQ-
States seek to protect election workers amid growing threats
Election Workers Threat
FILE - Chester Doles, rear center, leader of American Patriots USA, is surrounded by supporters as he makes his way to a 'Stop the Steal' rally outside of the Georgia State Capitol building, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Atlanta. During the tumultuous period immediately following the November 2020 presidential election, election workers across the country faced harassment and threats. Since then, legislators in a small but growing number of states have proposed measures to help protect those workers by creating or boosting penalties for such threats or assaults. (Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP, File)MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Lawmakers in a handful of states are seeking greater protections for election officials amid growing concerns for their safety after they were targeted by threats of violence following the 2020 presidential election.
Widespread threats against those who oversee elections, from secretaries of state to county clerks and even poll workers, soared after former President Donald Trump and his allies spread false claims about the outcome of the presidential election. “Corrupt secretaries will all hang when the stolen election is revealed” is just one example of the vitriol that has come from social media, emails and phone messages.
Even in Vermont, where the outcome wasn't disputed, election workers have faced threats. A caller to the secretary of state's office said in 2020 that a firing squad would target “all you cheating (vulgarity),” and “a lot of people are going to get executed.”
To counter the threats, lawmakers have introduced bills so far in Vermont and several other states, including Illinois, Maine, New Mexico and Washington, all of which have legislatures controlled by Democrats. Much of the legislation would create or boost criminal liability for threats and, in Illinois, for assaults against election workers.
More legislation is possible, as election officials warn that the ongoing attacks endanger democracy and that many election workers have quit or are considering doing so because of the abuse they have faced since the 2020 election.
“Nationally, we are seeing longtime experienced election leaders and their staffs leaving their positions for other work because they’ve had it — this is it, this has crossed the line,” said Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos, a Democrat.
A survey of local election officials commissioned by the Brennan Center last April found one in three felt unsafe because of their job and one in six said they had been threatened. Trump has continued to promote his false claims that the election was stolen from him, despite no evidence of the type of widespread fraud that would be needed to question the outcome, in which President Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes.
One bill under consideration in Vermont would expand the definition of criminal threatening to make it easier to prosecute those acts. Another would heighten the penalty for the criminal threatening of election officials, public employees and public servants.
During a recent legislative committee hearing, Condos described how the threatening calls had scared one staffer to the point that he was afraid to leave work and walk to his vehicle. He eventually took time off and sought counseling for symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress.
“No election official should ever need to fear for their life for their role in serving our country’s democracy in this or any election,” Condos said.
A bill in Maine would make threats against election officials a class C felony, after threats to two local clerks in 2021.
“The message has to be loud and clear that this is a threat to our democracy,” said Democratic Rep. Bruce White, the sponsor. “Threatening people who work our elections is entirely unacceptable.”
In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat, left her home for weeks as a safety precaution in response to security concerns. A Democrat-sponsored bill introduced last month expands the felony crime of intimidation to include acts against employees and agents of the secretary of state, county clerks and municipal clerks.
In Fulton County, Georgia, two election office workers — one a temporary employee — filed a lawsuit in December against a conservative website, accusing it of spreading false stories about them. Their lawsuit said the false claims led to a “deluge of intimidation, harassment, and threats that has forced them to change their phone numbers, delete their online accounts, and fear for their physical safety.”
In the weeks following the election, a top Georgia elections official condemned the onslaught of threats and called on Trump to rein in his supporters. At the time, Trump was claiming “massive voter fraud” in the state and people were driving in caravans past the home of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, and sending sexualized threats to Raffensperger’s wife.
At the federal level, an election threats task force within the U.S. Department of Justice has reviewed more than 850 reports of threats to election officials, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite said. Two people have been charged with federal crimes for threatening election workers, including a Texas man charged with threatening to kill government officials in Georgia after the 2020 election. Polite said the department also has dozens of open investigations.
Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, said it's imperative that harassers face prosecution.
“Unless people are held accountable, this kind of behavior is going to continue,” she said.
In October, a congressional committee heard from election officials about graphic threats to their safety since the 2020 election.
Legislation also was introduced by a group of Democrats in the U.S. Senate last year that would make it a federal crime for any person to intimidate or threaten an election worker. It became part of a larger effort by Democrats to create federal standards for voting and restore a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
That broader effort has since stalled, although there are signs that a bipartisan proposal may be in the works that could shore up what election experts have described as weaknesses in the nation’s electoral process. That proposal also might include ways to boost protections for election workers who are facing threats and harassment.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said she continues to receive threats and was working on a legislative proposal to protect election workers.
“I don’t think that signing up to administer elections should mean that you’re afraid that someone is going to hurt you,” Griswold said. “We can’t have an atmosphere where election workers are afraid to do what’s right, afraid to uphold the will of the people, because they’re afraid for their kids and for their homes and their lives. That’s not a democracy.”
____
Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo in Washington, D.C.; Morgan Lee, in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and David Sharp in Portland, Maine, contributed to this report.
Yes and there is ANOTHER way that the RW is making it harder to vote, fear and intimidation of election workers.
Those who think he is innocent will reject any information to the contrary. One could post a detailed confession by Trump and they would deem it a fraud. There is no reasoning with delusion. Confirmation bias preempts critical thinking.
Why do you think he openly admitted it today? I guess he knows his lemmings will not fall out of line, for any reason.
I don't think he realized the meaning of his words. He probably will come back and explain that by 'overturn the election' he was referring to overturning a rigged election or something like that.
The evidence that the election was fraudulent is all in the imaginations of the believers.
There is no evidence.
Without evidence, the assertion that should have "overturned" the election results is nothing but a coup attempt.
Hey, John, I will be no help trying to explain how someone can actually believe that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent.
That is exactly what he will do.
Evidence be damned. Why should a person who has maintained that the election was a fraud all along and is on record saying that the VP should "do the right thing" be afraid to say what the "right thing" is? Everybody knows what he meant. It is not like this statement is going to change the R's in the Trump world minds, because they think that the official results are incorrect. They believe him. They think he won and had the election stolen from him, despite the lack of evidence to support the claim.
Cognitive dissonance at it's finest, or maybe worst.
It is just another example why his lawyers will do anything to keep him from testifying under oath, once his lips start moving his brain disengages.
The notion on the right is that as long as it is their feeling that the election was stolen from Trump then there is no justifiable guilt … while monotonously bleating “fuck your feelings” out the other side of their mouths.
He could go on national TV, confess to his crimes, and they say it was a body double
It was a set up by them Liberals.
I thought we were too stupid to something like that off
Agreed.
But re: the next Election: that being said, there may be one thing that may trump that in the next election (?)
And that the sudden widening split in the Republican Party:
Fox News Abandons The GOP On Russia
No one should be surprised by those comments, his intention should be easily read by anyone with an IQ above 60.
That's the problem then as the majority of his supporters/enablers have IQs in the single digits.
Prove it
Prove that you're Right Down the Center.
There is no way I could prove that to you, nor do I care to. Tes made a claim about IQ level, surely that is quantifiable unless he/she/they is spreading misinformation.
I didn't expect that you COULD prove it, any more than could Tess prove that Trump's sheep have single digit IQ's, which was obviously an intended exaggeration in order to make a point, and it is the point that she made that I agree with.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
Of course you do, that is why you come to her defense when she promotes misinformation.
I'M NOT THE ONE SPREADING/PROMOTING MISINFORMATION.
It's called an OPINION. Some opinions are more informed than others. Based on interaction here, Tessy is pretty informed on the IQ reflected in all too many Trump's minions.
Just bullshit!!!!
Your comment indicates a misunderstanding of what I said, and IMO that fits in with Tess' opinion.
Of course it does. I would expect nothing less.
Many certainly behave as though that were true (when it comes to ideological / political / religious matters).
LOL. Nor would I. Thank you for your admission.
Not too good at recognizing sarcasm I see.
Aren't we all so lucky that at least you can see.
[Deleted Go for it.]
ke Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying,
Imagine being so deranged that it seems like a good idea to attack Susan Collins for trying to rewrite the Electoral Count Act on a bipartisan basis to provide clarity and make it harder for Congress to oppose the certification of state's votes. I've not seen a single election law expert who supports the law.
It's literally the only election law that actually needs reforming and Democrats oppose it. I guess after objecting to the certification of the last three elections they lost, they want to make it as easy as possible to overturn elections.
What are your thoughts about Trump saying
"Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Plese tell us what the factual basis would have been for overturning the election .
Trump was wrong.
But why is it "wacky" to work for a bipartisan rewriting of the Electoral Count Act to clarify the procedures make it harder for Congress to challenge election votes, which now happens every time the Democrats lose?
We had a president of the United States who wanted to be returned to office for a second term through unethical and fraudulent means.
Nothing takes precedence over making sure he is held accountable. Nothing.
Have you been claiming that while Schumer spent the last six months attacking the filibuster, trying to spend trillions of dollars on liberal pet causes, give a tax break to the 1 percent and take over state elections?
Or does that only matter when a bipartisan group of Senators try to solve problems?
I dont think you take Jan 6 seriously.
Just the opposite. He takes Jan. 6th so seriously he will do anything, say anything, to distract from it.
And attack her he did!
Donald Trump calls Susan Collins "Wacky" as she pursues bipartisan election reform in D.C.
No need to 'imagine' it Sean, Trump just proved just how 'deranged' he is, in writing.
Trump basically confessed to unethical and unpatriotic if not criminal behavior, at the highest level possible in this country. At the least he should be shunned and denounced by every decent American and expelled from the American political scene. The ball is in the conservatives court now. What will they do?
They will do nothing different. The fact that they have continued to prop Trump up for 14+ months of Big Lie nonsense shows that truth is irrelevant. It also shows that they cannot see the damage they are helping to inflict on the GOP.
I think they want him to run again. Then they can claim some sort of vindication if he actually got elected.
If so those are profoundly screwed up priorities.
Good point.
I know republicans who are quite opposed to Trump.
Some for various reasons-- but most are starting to realize the damage he will do to Republican election hopes in the future.
Obviously he liost the last election-- but as he gets wackier and wackier, and as more about his actions on Jan 6 are revealed...many republicans, staunch conservatives who want the Republicans to gain power, are beginning to realize what a drag on republican hopes he's become!
But what will claim if he loses-- and by an even bigger margin than he did last time?
Become even more extreme...and therefore lose the next Election by an even wider margin than they lost the last one.
Whatever Trump tried to do didn't work. Biden won the election fair and square, despite a fair amount of fraud by the Democrats. If Trump is guilty, he will had his day in court. You might dispute the fact, but he is losing support every time he opens his idiot mouth. When the Republicans take control of the House and Senate in a few months, the tone of the response will quickly change, as presidential hopefuls will start to increasingly start to challenge his tactics and dispute his ill considered words.
Why are they waiting for the midterms?
PROVE IT!
Link?
So why, then-- do the vast majority of Republicans still support him?
His %age support (amongst Republicans) is quite large.
Surely they can't all be ..just plain stupid?
(Or....???)
The hair-on-fire outrage claiming that Trump tried to steal the election depends upon a fact that elections can be stolen. Are Democrats trying to prevent elections being stolen - or - are Democrats protecting their ability to steal elections?
All the overblown conspiracy theories concern one, and only one, election in the United States. If we're focusing attention on only the Presidential election then there is plenty of opportunity to manipulate down ballot elections without being noticed. And, in case no one has noticed, Congress exerts an oversized influence on government; much more so than the President.
What Trump is doing is actually politically savvy. Trump is weakening the Office of President by pressuring Congress to impose limits on authority. And Trump is distracting the press and electorate from paying any attention to down ballot elections.
So you deny that Trump tried to steal the election.
That is an admission that elections can be stolen. Trump has, indeed, challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election. And Trump really did try to interpret and use existing election laws to change the outcome of the election. What Trump has attempted to do is rather obvious. The question is whether or not Trump has done something illegal. If Trump's attempts to use election laws to challenge the 2020 election have been legal then elections can be stolen; simple as that.
The obvious remedy for what Trump has attempted to do would involve imposing limitations on authority and restrictions on political influence in the election process. Is the hair-on-fire outrage by Democrats focused on imposing those limitations and restrictions on political influence in the election process? Or are Democrats attempting to protect their political influence in the election process?
No, the obvious remedy is for the Republican Party and the Republican electorate to denounce him and shun him. This country is 245 years old and he is the only one who tried to steal an election in this way. He is the problem.
Democrats naturally want the electorate to focus attention on Republicans. That's such a transparent political ploy that few other than party faithful will give it heed.
Democrats claiming Trump is the problem is only an attempt to protect Democrats' political influence in the election process; Democrats are trying to protect their ability to steal elections. Democrats want the country to completely ignore the election process and focus attention on Trump and Republicans. That's the lazy, sleazy, and stupid way to engage in politics which is the preferred choice of Democrats.
Your comment is total nonsense
Democrats are trying to protect their ability to steal elections.
And they are so fucking good at it that there’s never a trace of evidence left behind, huh?
Your comment says nothing.
Well, they did leave a couple of republicans that voted twice or in someone else's name.
I am sure that was to throw people off the trail....
No, it is recognition that someone can try to steal an election.
The word 'tried' is operative.
You deny that Trump tried to steal the election. There is no reasoning with such a mindset.
Legality is NOT the issue. I can try to steal a pencil from you. That is not illegal but it is still an attempt to steal. Trump attempted to steal the election through lawsuits, coercion, subornation, lying, etc. Even if everything he did was deemed legal (which would be pathetic), he still tried to deny Biden the win and stay in office.
Your comment(s) say a whole lot of nothing.
Democrats' political influence over elections is legal. And that's what Democrats do not want the public to see. That's why there is zero attention given to the election process. It's all about Trump and only about Trump.
there is zero attention given to the election process.
What country are you living in? The election process dominates the news every day in this country.
What about 'challenge the legitimacy of the election' do you not understand? The danger posed by Trump is his focusing attention on the election process itself.
Look, Trump was hamstrung by allegations that Russia meddled in the election and placed Trump in office. That political narrative implied the election process can be rigged. Trump has turned Democrats' political narrative against Joe Biden; the 2020 election was rigged in the same manner that Democrats claimed the 2016 election was rigged. Democrats claimed that just because Trump won the 2016 election didn't mean that Trump's win was legitimate. Trump is using the same argument against Joe Biden. But Trump is focusing attention on the election process itself. That's what worries Democrats.
No. What dominates the news every day is voting in Presidential elections. What is ignored in the press' inspired controversies is that ballots are extremely location specific.
Counting votes in a Presidential election is fairly straightforward since candidates for that election are the same across all ballots throughout the country. Down ballot elections, particularly for local offices, introduces a lot of complexity into the election process. That's why voting in the correct precinct is important. Vote by mail allows elections to be rigged by simply mailing the wrong ballots to voters.
I am not the one with the cognitive disconnect. You are trying to defend Trump’s attempt to steal a presidential election.
There is no evidence of illegitimacy in the election. It us beyond pathetic to keep pushing this clearly false conspiracy theory.
Get a grip.
Plus having elections every two years keeps the cycle front and center.
Vote by mail allows elections to be rigged by simply mailing the wrong ballots to voters.
What other meritless accusations have you got? Show the evidence of your claims if you want to be taken seriously.
No, I'm not trying to defend what Trump is doing. But I'm also not trying to make what Trump is doing something other than what it is.
I'm not the one claiming that 'legal' is irrelevant. Claiming that 'legal' is irrelevant only serves to protect how political influence in the election process is used to rig elections.
Did Trump try to steal the election? If you answer 'no' then all of my comments continue to apply.
The short answer is 'no'. Trump did not try to steal the election. Even if Trump succeeded with some challenges, he still would have lost the election. Pence rejecting certification of state electoral totals would not have changed the outcome of the election; the state results would still have been certified by the states.
There isn't any way that Trump could steal the election through audits, court litigation, or recruiting faithless electors. The electoral result wasn't that close. The only thing Trump could accomplish with the actions he's taken would be to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the election process.
Does not matter if he was successful or if there was any possibility of him ever prevailing. I asked if he TRIED to steal the election.
You do not believe Trump TRIED to steal the election.
The short answer is 'no'. Trump did not try to steal the election, as I already stated. Trump tried to create doubts about the legitimacy of the election process.
Trump turned Democrats' narrative about the legitimacy of an election win back against Democrats. That's what Trump tried to do.
He may have challenged the legitimacyof theelection,...but his challenge itself was not legitimate.
And you know this how?
I'm so tired of that nonsense. Just because whatshisname and his mob(s) of domestic terrorists DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT, JUST BECAUSE THEY TRIED AND DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT - WE SHOULD ALL JUST MOVE ALONG.
Already answered.
You do realize you can have the proper ballot sent to you? In CO there is plenty of time before the election to get a new ballot.
Nope.
You are wrong!
I see your "Already answered"...and raise you one already answered!
I'm am already preparing for more "brilliant arguments" (/s) by anticipating the next tactic..perhaps a "derail by whattaboudism"?
Or maybe the time honoured technique of making a statement-- with no evidence...and then following by the dreaded word..."PERIOD!" (Following a statement by the use of "Period!" is believed by some folks here to prove they're right.)
PERIOD!
(Do we really need to degrade the discussion even more by more "It's already been proved", when it hasn't been? and more "whaddaboud Hillary?" and even more of the dreaded: "PERIOD!")
A bit of /sarc on my part, but seriously-- none of those are evidence that an argument is valid...why do so many people here not see that?
So based on your above comment, you're presuming that voters are utterly uninformed idiots.
Seriously Nerm, have your ever voted via mail in ballot?
The ballots have YOUR name on them Nerm. They require YOUR signature. Here in Indiana, you're required to sign an 'affidavit' on the envelope swearing that the information contained within is true.
Now, most voters would recognize that the name on the ballot isn't theirs, so they call down to the courthouse and request a LEGAL ballot.
Secondly, in your conspiracy theory, who are you claiming is going to 'mail the wrong ballots to voters'? To WHAT end?
Please cite ANY evidence that such an issue actually exists. Cite the state and precinct.
Oh and BTFW, after the election, Trump fostered multiple scenarios that would have 'rigged' the election in his favor. Please tell me about the outrage you feel about that FACT.
You think that was his plan?
Or could it have been he was actually trying to abuse his position....
From my perspective, Trump was only trying to muddy the election and create doubt about the legitimacy of Joe Biden being President. IMO Trump's plan was to do to Biden what had been done to Trump.
Sorry but not many people deny he won the election over a year out...
Same can't be said for donald supporters, that still claim he won...
Completely ridiculous.
Nope
He was trying to steal the Election.
Period!
(And whaddabout Obama...?)
Double /sarc...with a Cherry on top!
Link?
Here ya go:
Link?
Here ya go:
Nope.
You are wrong!
(For all you home gamers: The (rather silly) technique I'm using here is from NLP ("neuro-linguistic Programming"...those people refer to the technique as "mirroring") .
{get smarter here?}
It can be effective...but it use has been criticized as manipulative at times..I'm not a big fan actually, and don't use it frequently....
That's so blatantly revisionist that even you don't know what you are talking about.
How could Trump steal what cannot be stolen? The argument depends upon a (fake) fact that elections can be stolen.
First (again) nobody said that Trump stole the election; he tried to steal it.
Second, do you think this is a persuasive argument? You merely claim —defying all common sense— that elections cannot be stolen.
What is the point ... just to make silly comments that cause people to shake their heads and wonder WTF Nerm is talking about??
So, your contention is that elections CAN be stolen. How is that possible? Support your assertion that elections can be stolen.
Yeah, Nerm, elections can be stolen.
You forgot the 'new and improved' election laws by GOP legislatures who can now ignore the actual election counts.
Funny how some people will argue anything. Imagine actually claiming that elections cannot be stolen. What motivates someone to post something like that?
You've listed some (not all) of the concerns that have been voiced about election security. Even Trump has challenged the legitimacy of the election by claiming the election was stolen from him using the means you've listed.
Those concerns over election security, some of which you have listed, have been summarily dismissed. According to the official response, elections are secure which means elections cannot be stolen.
Thank you for your A+B=Artichokes argument.
An utter lack of critical thinking.
Why post such utter nonsense? Do you want people to laugh at and dismiss what you post?
that train left the station years ago...
The idea that a Presidential election can be stolen has been deemed the Big Lie. Trump's Stop the Steal challenge has been based upon Biden winning the election by circumventing election security. Biden won the election on mail-in ballots; not on ballots cast in person at polling stations. Trump's Stop the Steal allegations are based upon mail in ballots being used to circumvent election security.
You've made Trump's case by pointing out that circumventing election security allows stealing elections. The list you presented in @7.3.6 cannot be a Big Lie and a truth at the same time.
And there we have it ladies and gents. Bingo!!!
No, Nerm, the Big Lie is the label for Trump's false claims that the election was rigged and his attempt to steal it.
When will you understand that changing the meaning of words (and phrases) is not an argument?? Even though 'Just Jim' (@ 7.3.15 ) demonstrably buys that bullshit I doubt it is net effective.
By what twisted logic do you make such a ridiculous declaration?
If the election was stolen from Trump, as you are attempting to argue, then deliver the evidence. Show how any known irregularities in election security caused a change that would have an impact on the election.
Nobody has been able to do that so by what mental gymnastics do you and 'Just Jim' come off thinking this is reality? Until you can deliver credible evidence that Trump was the legitimate winner of the election, your claims are utterly ridiculous.
This is just another attempt to claim that it's impossible for Democrats (and liberals) to steal elections. The disinformation being foisted in a rather dishonest manner is that concerns over election security is irrationally stupid. Claiming that Presidential elections can be stolen is a Big Lie -- Trump's Big Lie.
It's only when Democrats make allegations concerning election security that the Big Lie becomes a truth. Partisan truth ain't very honest.
What?? How on Earth can you get from what I wrote that it is impossible for Ds to steal elections? That is whole-cloth invention on your part.
Do you believe that the Ds stole the election from Trump ... that Trump is the legitimate PotUS?
That's why the effort was called Stop the Steal? Accusing others of changing the meaning of words (and phrases) by overtly redefining the crux of Trump's Stop the Steal challenge is either irrational hallucination or deliberate misinformation.
Delivering the evidence would necessitate acquiring evidence, wouldn't it? Wouldn't delivering the evidence require seizing voting machines and records? Wouldn't acquiring evidence depend upon securing ballots and voting records by barring access to election officials?
Demanding to deliver evidence while limiting ability to acquire evidence establishes an insurmountable requirement. That's little different than the logical fallacy of begging the question. Imposing stringent criteria for what constitutes acceptable evidence is also one basis for gaslighting.
The facts are that Republican candidates (including MAGA Republicans) were quite successful in down ballot elections. In political parlance, Trump provided coattails for down ballot Republican candidates. Trump was also quite successful on ballots cast in person at polling stations. Yet Joe Biden won the election on mail-in ballots that did not have a significant influence on the down ballot success of Republican candidates. That's an incongruity that can't be explained away by redefining Trump's Stop the Steal challenge as the Big Lie.
Overall, Republicans won the 2020 election; Democrats lost the 2020 election. The Presidential election was the outlier in the results. The candidate that provided coattails for down ballot Republican success lost the election?
Was I speaking to you? Was I speaking about you?
Of course he does.
Good grief, now you are claiming that the evidence that would show Trump's Big Lie was a Big Truth was inaccessible because the Ds somehow prevented the evidence from being uncovered?
Hilarious!
BINGO MY BIG FAT ASS!
I don't know where this idea of combing through all the data to find a crime before evidence a crime has actually been committed comes from? Nowhere in modern US history has this been a legal process - one they should have figured out by reading anyone of a dozen (or more) rulings (some by Trump appointees no less) on THE BIG LIE.
Because they needed an easily understood 'motto' for his minions.
Nerm, Trump and his lawyers filed suits in EVERY battleground state and many others. NOT ONE Judge bought their bullshit. In many hearings, Trump's lawyers presented NO empirical evidence and in fact clearly stated that their filing did NOT include a claim election fraud. Some of Trump's lawyers have been disbarred for filing FALSE affidavits AND blatantly lying to the court. In states that Trump STILL claims were 'fixed' Trump didn't even bother to request a recount. Most of those states did a recount ANYWAY, some more than one.
NONE of those recounts, MANY overseen by Republicans, found any statistically relevant amount of voter fraud. NONE.
Those are ALL facts Nerm.
Trump's 'Stop the Steal' challenge was and is just smoke and mirrors. It's merely a shiny object, dangled by a sociopathic narcist to keep himself relevant after LOSING.
The FACT that Trump lost miserably while GOP down ballot candidates won proves that Trump's 'coattails' are tattered. Republican voters chose to split their ballots Nerm. The GOP is lucky they did.
Prove that Nerm.
Silence ensues.
This isn’t new information. Is there someone out there - conservative or liberal - who thought they weren’t trying to overturn the election?
Overturning the election was always the stated goal. Their position, though, was that they would be overturning the election results on legal grounds. Even the January 6 protest was supposed to be like any other political demonstration, where a bunch of people turn out and thereby “influence” some politician to take certain legal action.
Now, we can observe that evidence justifying overturning the elections was insufficient. And we can observe that the violence at the Capitol went way beyond ordinary protest. But the fact remains, the campaign to overturn the election was conducted largely in the open via recounts, audits, and court actions - basically every legal avenue available, even if those avenues were used frivolously.
Donald Trump wanted a few things to happen. There was some overlap , in order to throw as much at the wall as possible and be thorough. In every state (of the swing states) that he lost he wanted some sort of intervention by the state legislatures that would redirect that states electoral votes to him. He didnt need to get all seven of the swing states to do this, just three or four would have been enough to give him the win in the electoral college. This was his bottom line position, but via the Eastman memo, he also wanted a simple conclusion, for Mike Pence to announce on Jan 6 that seven states results were in "dispute" and thus those electoral votes would not be counted in the tally. This action also would have made Trump the winner. As another avenue he wanted Pence to send the electoral votes back to the states to recertify based on Trump's allegations that the election was stolen. Essentially, short of Pence just naming him the winner of the election because seven states were in "dispute" and thus would nit be counted, Trump wanted the state legislatures to send alternate sets of electors (favoring Trump) and to be voted upon by the House of Reprentaives.
The problem, and where the "big steal" comes in , is that Trump had no evidence that any voter fraud in any of the seven states existed , and thus he had no factual basis for any of his plans to appoint "alternate electors". The courts rejected him time after time. The individual state election boards rejected him time after time. The governors rejected his ideas time aftyer time.
Yes there were recounts and court cases, but Trump intended to go way past that. He wanted Mike Pence to reject the results of the election and either declare Trump to be the winner, or to send the election back to the states where "alternate electors" could be named by Trump partisans.
there was NO proper basis for any of this.
I agree with you, but every time a candidate loses an election and demands a recount or an audit or whatever, they are seeking to overturn the election. Often, when they seek those remedies, they are unsatisfied and appeal to the courts. All of this is legal, if annoying, and often rests on very thin evidence. In fact, the argument that the opposition has no proper basis to make their claim is practically boilerplate in any brief submitted to the court. Courts don’t get to quickly prejudge stuff the way we might.
Lawyers present all sorts of claims and arguments to courts because once in a while, things go your way and the judge buys the bullshit. It’s a tricky balancing act because there are sanctions for bringing actions in bad faith. But the higher the stakes, I think a lawyer is more likely to try for the Hail Mary play. What do you got to lose? If your client wins, he’s the president and he pardons you.
You are vastly minimizing the scale of what Trump was trying to do. To my knowledge no other attempt to question an election has gone on to the extent or the duration of what Trump has done. Not even close. Trump approved of Sidney Powell and Giulianis insane plan to blame the manufacturers of the voting machines. Sidney Powell explained it all to Trump in the Oval Office. He didnt tell her not to say that communists in Venezuela and China stole the election from him, he was hoping the accusations would work, even though they were insane.
You spend too much time trying to find excuses or explanations for Trump , when you should be unconditionally condemning him. Of course, sadly, you are not alone in that boat.
I’m not trying to minimize anything. I don’t have an agenda when it comes to Trump.
I totally agree.
Again, that is not the case. I am patient and will let the evidence lead us to the truth. On the other hand, your anti-Trump bias is well established and you have a history of attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% on him - even people that agree with you to the level of 99%.
Were they, in your opinion, trying to produce election results for Trump that were in opposition to the legitimate votes of the American people?
The thing is, I can’t read people’s minds. The stakes here are too high and partisanship too much in play to just settle for inferring intent based on actions. We need hard evidence one way or the other.
What they were doing - on the surface - was legal. Stupid? Of course. But still perfectly legal. Donald Trump is not the first person to use our courts or access to public officials to flog the shit out of an absurdly thin claim with no credible evidence. He won’t be the last, either.
The question is was he doing this in good faith? Or did he understand all along that he lost fair and square? I honestly don’t know. People can talk themselves into believing all sorts of madness, so who knows? For example, look at all the people who still think Stacey Abrams was robbed. Those claims are just as dumb, but the people making them haven’t embarrassed themselves quite as much as the Trump people have.
The smoking gun in this case would be some kind of written communication that made it clear Trump and his people believed they had lost the election fairly but that they had a strategy to manipulate the system in bad faith to overturn the election. If that ends up being the case, they should all be thrown in jail.
But Tacos!, you know that they were trying to direct circumstances so that Trump would be inaugurated instead of Biden.
It does not matter if what they did and what they tried to do was 100% legal (which clearly it was not), the intended result was to have Trump be declared the winner and continue as PotUS. There is no mind-reading required here.
So, given that, were they trying to create a result that was in opposition to the legitimate votes of the American people?
Absolutely ludicrous.
We can KNOW that Trump made all this shit up if for no other reason than that he was going to make the same sort of wild accusations in 2016 if he had lost that election to Clinton. He said, in 2016, that if he lost it would be because the election was stolen from him. In 2016. Of course he lucked out and won in 2016 so he didnt have to go plan b.
So 2020 was just more of the same he had planned all along.
Yes, I have already said that a couple times.
I’m sorry, but if it’s 100% legal, that matters a great deal.
You keep repeating that as if I have said otherwise. I don’t understand why, though.
As I have said, I cannot say what they believed, but their public position was that having Trump continue as president would be the outcome that reflected the legitimate (but stolen) votes of the American people. They said a million times that Biden winning was not legitimate. I have never heard any of them say that they thought Biden won fair and square but that Trump should be inaugurated in spite of that.
Actually, in 2016, he claimed that 3-5 million votes were illegally counted for Clinton. Remember that he lost the popular vote by about 3 million. So even though he won the Electoral College, he still claimed fraud and did so with even less evidence than he had in 2020.
I wonder if it could be a ploy that he would always use. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were a tactic he has used before in business.
Or it may just be that his narcissism runs so deep that he genuinely can’t accept the idea that he could ever lose a popularity contest unless the opponent cheated.
If Trump had not been president or if he had ridden off into the sunset now your playing down of the seriousness of all this might be more persuasive. But neither of those are the case.
He wants power again. Do you want people to stand aside and just see what happens? Or should every patriotic American denounce him and collectively drive him off the scene?
Again, I am not playing down anything. All I am doing is waiting for the evidence to be presented before I say what did or did not happen.
Big surprise. A lot of people want power. Biden wanted power.
Stand aside? What does that even mean?
It is a waste of time to talk to you.
I assume that’s because I don’t obediently agree with everything you say. If you’re here for the echo chamber experience, then yes, you are wasting your time talking to me.
If a judge were to have ruled in Trump's favor that would be considered a legal win. This is an example of a 100% legal act by Trump, et. al. that was part of an attempt by Trump to steal the election. If Trump had successfully coerced others to rule in his favor on matters (e.g. state legislators), his actions would be 100% legal (albeit entirely unethical) but would still be part of an attempt to steal an election.
That is what I meant.
Do you believe that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that Trump legitimately won?
I expect you will answer: 'no'.
Do you believe that Trump, et. al. tried to find a way for Trump to stay in office for a second term?
Your answer (as you just affirmed) is: 'yes'.
Assuming I have provided the correct answers then the only conclusion that I can see is that Trump, et. al. was trying to steal a second term.
You have a long history of making excuses for Trump. That is your problem, not mine.
I have had no problem allowing that as a possibility. However, my opinions or theories don’t tell us anything factual about the mind of Trump or his followers. It may also be that he was either hoping against hope that fraud had happened, or he is just so self deluded that he can’t accept that he lost legitimately.
So far, the evidence that he was knowingly and intentionally trying to steal a second term is not strong. Merely refusing to give up the fight is pretty weak evidence of fraud. Why continue going to court? Why seek audits? Why demand extra recounts? Why appeal to governors or the Vice President? In other words, why seek relief through the legal system if he doesn’t believe there is a legal path to a second term?
As coups go, it wasn’t very aggressive.
No, I have a long history of thinking for myself instead of going along with some political party. And you are making my point about needing people to agree with you.
The other possibility of course is that Trump gratuitously engaged in a big game to put forth a pretense that he did not actually lose.
But then his attempt to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act to table certified counts suggests an attempt to steal rather than simply an ego-preserving pretense. And trying to coerce officials to find votes for him likewise.
I would not call what he did an attempted coup. But I think his actions were extremely aggressive given the actual evidence he had to support his claims.
By the time we got to Jan 6, Joe Biden was the incoming president. All the states had sent the electors to Congress that they wanted to, there were no "disputed" outcomes in any of the states.
So it was a coup , (although the word may not be a perfect fit for what happened it has been accepted in the popular parlance).
Why nit-pick on a word? You and I are in basic agreement on this issue, why distract and diffuse?
Call it whatever you wish. What is important is that Trump clearly (at least to me) dishonestly tried to stay in office after losing the election.
All you'll get is hemming and hawing, twisting and twisting when it comes the whatshisname enablers.
I'm so sick and tired of the excuses and the hemming and the hawing of the whatshisname enablers. It's beyond ludicrous.
Oh FFS. Unfreakingbelieveable.
If you don’t have an actual response, why hit “reply?”
It no longer ceases to amaze me that those defending the violence of many of the insurrectionists on Jan 6 believe it was all legal...(for instance: Violently attacking officers of the law)
We were talking about Trump and his cohorts, but I agree with your comment nonetheless.
Listen to the tape of Trump's call with Georgia's SOS.
This is embarrassing (for the nation) to listen to.
Even more embarrassing (and downright delusional) that some people still believe the election was stolen.
Well, if Americans are seeking something that will unify them, there's always the Superbowl, but now that I think of it, even IT'S a conflict between teams and each have their supporters.
Unfortunately, there is a far too large majority of the RW that continue to claim that phone call was 'perfect'.
May or may not be true . . . . supposedly shredded . . . . burning ballots . . . dumping ballots . . . many of them will be certified . . . won't be certified . . . . they are certified . . . .
he contradicts himself in just about every statement
An hour long rant of made up shit and lies
Mr. 'President' - the data you have is wrong
We don't have the records that you have.
True-- that's one way they tried.
But that's not the whole story.
The other way that was tried was an attempt, by use of deadly force, to stop Mike Pense from certifying the results.
of course both approaches failed-- but the fact is both were tried.
I'm sure most reasonably informed people are aware of that.
However I wouldn't be surprised if some of the crazier MAGA-cultists believe those tactics were all legit (i.e. believing that Trump actually did win the election, that it was "stolen" by "da libs")...and the Jan 6 insurrectionistas were honestly trying to "right a wrong".) Some of these people are incredibly stupid (or incredibly gullible, to say the least!!!)
Adam Kinzinger
@AdamKinzinger
·
19h
“He could have overturned the election.”
This is an admission, and a massively un-American statement. It is time for every Republican leader to pick a side… Trump or the Constitution, there is no middle on defending our nation anymore.
========================================================================================
Liz Cheney
@Liz_Cheney
·
9h
Trump uses language he knows caused the Jan 6 violence; suggests he’d pardon the Jan 6 defendants, some of whom have been charged with seditious conspiracy; threatens prosecutors; and admits he was attempting to overturn the election. He’d do it all again if given the chance.
I was listening to videos from Wanda from Q, she says Trump won by a lot.
Well-- if "Wanda from Q said it"-- than it must be true!
Actually I heard a guy named Joe (AKA "The Big Noise from Speonk") who said Trump lost.
By a lot!
A friend of mine has a talking Parrot-- he said it was too close to call....