Will Someone Please Tell Me What Donald Trump's "Side Of The Story" Is Regarding Jan 6 ?
This is a challenge and an offer to the right wing on Newstalkers.
Tell us what Trump would like us to know about Jan 6 that we are all getting wrong.
All I ask is that you be specific.
Comments that do not address this issue will be deleted.
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
Since so many conservatives here say that Trump has not been allowed to give his side, here is their chance to tell us all what Trump's side is.
Here is my guess on what Trump and his minions would argue.
Trump truly, genuinely believes that the election was stolen. He rejects the opinions and 'supposed' (in his mind) facts of those who claim otherwise because ... well ... he just knows that there is no possible way he could have lost. After all, look at the size of his crowds. The people love him. And besides, it is inconceivable that a man as great as Trump could lose to someone like Biden.
In short, Trump will claim that his beliefs are true. Thus all of his actions were an attempt to prevent the election from being stolen (from him). And as for the three hour delay of inaction, Trump will claim that he did not believe those were his supporters breaking and entering the building. But as soon as he was convinced that it was (187 minutes later), he immediately asked them to go in peace (while telling them they were in the right).
Bottom line, Trump is either mentally ill (e.g. still believes the election was rigged) or he is a lying sack of shit who abused his office in an attempt to steal a presidential election through dishonest, unethical, unconstitutional and likely illegal means because his ego could not stand losing.
Either way, the GoP should have detached from him as soon as they determined his Big Lie was indeed groundless. How anyone can even consider supporting this historical traitor (in comparison with every other PotUS in our history) is extremely disappointing and concerning.
This...
Nice try I guess, but isnt it true that as president Trump had a responsibility to try and end the riotous assault on the national legislature , no matter whose supporters they were? If they were Biden supporters or Clinton supporters he may have had a tactical nuke dropped on them two minutes after they breached the building.
I suppose its possible Trump actually believes he won the election, or more accurately lost because it was stolen from him, but anyone who tries to make that case , including Trump himself, have to show us some evidence. For example Trump claims he actually won Wisconsin because a judge there said, much much later, that ballot drop boxes were not authorized by the legislature but instead were authorized by the election commission which evidently does not have that authority. Even if we accept this as the final word, how does that make Trump the winner? The winner is the person who got the most votes. If some of Bidens votes came via drop box, so what? The only thing that matters is that registered voters voted once. That can be determined by a simple check , which was done in Wisconsin and everywhere else. Trump wants to disenfrancise tens of millions of voters on the overall theory that processes to vote were used , because of the pandemic, that he does not approve of. (Because he lost?)
Steve Bannon says that the plan all along was for Trump to claim victory election night (which he did) and then dispute any contrary facts. In fact, that was his plan for 2016 as well, but he never had to put it in motion.
Absolutely!
They will, as before, make the case without evidence and lose.
I see you have a boatload of Trump supporters offering Trump's case in response to your challenge.
I dont expect many right wingers to respond to this challenge. One would be nice.
It would seem that most are too busy making general, vague dismissive statements about the hearings. The denial and deflection is running high. The supporting arguments are basically nuh'uh and I don't buy it and the hearings are rigged.
He won bigly. The election was stolen. Democrats changed the rules regarding mail-in and early voting after the election was already started.
Also, reality is for suckers.
Since no conservatives are stepping up, I will give the true confessional Trump's side of the story. Hat tip to the Bulwark.
I have changed some words to imagine them being spoken by Trump in a confessional.
-
I cannot suspend disbelief enough to conceive of Trump telling the truth.
Trump can tell his own side during a trial. That's the biggest fear of his political opponents.
For those who refuse to accept that the Jan. 6th committee is made up of political lunatics, consider this political optic. A President challenging the legitimacy of the election deploying the national guard to the Capitol as the Senate is certifying the results of that election. Trump is accused of attempting a coup by NOT sending in the military? The committee's argument is a special kind of political stupid.
Trump is accused of inciting the riot on Jan. 6th but Trump was not allowed to go to the Capitol to exert control over those he incited? Trump was supposed to send in the military during an 'insurrection' supposedly intended to keep Trump in office? And these brilliant politicians can't understand why that would raise alarms around the world.
Of course there wasn't any fraud during the election. The questionable conduct of the elections in various states was made legal, often through executive orders by governors using emergency powers justified by the pandemic. The pandemic excused legalizing potentially fraudulent voting activity through autocratic (and undemocratic) dictates. Trump won the in-person votes. And in-person voting wasn't dramatically lower because of the pandemic. Biden won the Presidency through a non-traditional voting process that was put in place, under the guise of public safety, by executive and bureaucratic decrees.
Biden campaigned more during the primaries than he did during the general election. The primary campaigns were happening during the first COVID surge and well before any treatments or vaccines were available. Public safety only became an overriding concern following the primaries and after Biden had won the nomination. And the voting process was altered to favor non-traditional means of voting after the primaries. Voters were not allowed a month of remote voting for the primaries; that only became a preferred voting method for the general election.
Hilarious. His political opponents have been trying to get him to be forced to testify for years now. They aren't afraid of anything he'll say. His advisors are, though. They know they stand a good chance of going down with the ship when he incriminates himself. Steve Bannon could tell you a thing or two about that, once he's out of prison.
Forcing Trump to testify gives Trump a public platform. Trump's opponents point to Trump's charismatic control over his supporters. Trump being given a platform during a trial will either make Trump a victim of the system or a martyr for a cause.
Trump's political opponents want testimony that they can control. But Trump has shown repeatedly that he is uncontrollable. That's the same reason Steve Bannon has only agreed to public testimony.
A hearing or trial is not a popularity contest, Nerm.
Really? Then explain why the Jan. 6th committee conducted a publicity event.
They did not. They conducted a series of hearing which communicated insider information to the public that came from dozens of high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers by testifying under-oath.
The hearings have provided to the public a wealth of very credible information. Each individual has the option to consider this information or not.
The hearings have been televised the same as similar hearings - Benghazi, for example. Here's a schedule of televised hearings, if you're interested:
Networks are carrying it because there are plenty of people interested in democracy and rule of law. Surely, an engaged public is a good thing, right, Nerm?
Of course, Fox News isn't carrying it. Do you think that's because Trump's opponents are scared, Nerm?
Perhaps. It's more likely the networks wanted to avoid Democrats' outrage and slanderous allegations. Fox News televising the hearings on a less watched broadcasting segment is being used as condemnation, after all.
Besides, a lot of journalists have written books and they have a vested interest in promotion. Jonathan Karl promotes his book as part of routine reporting on the hearings.
Publicizing and televising the hearings are not a requirement for investigation. In fact, all the televised testimony had already been obtained in closed testimony. The committee wanted to know what the answers to their questions would be before the public could see the testimony. The investigative work had already been done and the facts had already been gathered before the hearings were televised.
The public hearings were a staged reenactment of testimony obtained in closed session.
Does it hurt, stretching that far?
No, but that is a very good way to provide the information to the public.
Wow, what a knack for stating the obvious. Would you have preferred the committee just blindly call witnesses in some kind of entirely random reality show?
You object to video of under-oath testimony? Do you object also to the live testimony? Is there anything that you do not object to regarding these hearings?
You condemned Fox News for not televising the hearings. Why wouldn't you condemn the other networks for not televising the hearings?
And we're supposed to believe that avoiding public condemnation isn't part of the motivation for the networks to publicize and televise the hearings?
Not an objection. Just pointing out that the under-oath testimony was televised for publicity purposes and not to further the investigation. Since the testimony was pre-recorded then obviously the committee had already obtained the information.
Since you've invited strawman arguments by employing strawman arguments; are you suggesting the testimony was so nice the committee had to hear it twice?
I offered no strawman argument.
Not especially. I find it amusing, more than anything, and predictable. The other networks have been condemned for televising the hearings, you know. Lots of people have inexplicable attachments to bad daytime television, and they're angry it's being pre-empted.
Fox News has really made a major turn for the worse over the years. These 'news' channels (such as Fox) are always starving for new material ... in lieu of same they must recast the same old crap over and over ... slicing and dicing and beating it to death.
So Fox News ignoring all this new material is a very strong argument that they are indeed catering to those with the mentality to believe Trump.
No, Trump is likely guilty of dereliction of duty for refusing to take any action to disperse the insurrectionists. Surely you know the details better than you portray.
Your prose suggests that you are being sarcastic. Realistically, there is fraud in every major election. It only takes one person for that to occur. Now, do you believe that there was fraud / mistakes / etc. sufficient to change the results of the election?
“Trump can tell his own side during a trial. That's the biggest fear of his political opponents”.
His ‘own side’ is obvious. He will do anything to avoid a trial, as he knows it will be his undoing. His political opponents, and anyone who appreciates the truth welcomes the opportunity.
Trump has to do everything to avoid a trial so that when it happens he can claim being a victim or martyr. How can liberals not recognize their own playbook?
You actually think that the losing candidate in a presidential election should go the Capitol with a mass of people at the very moment his opponent is being certified as the winner? You are hilarious.
Where and when did Trump allegedly incite the riot?
Your argument only makes sense by completely ignoring the allegations against Trump. You do understand that the rally has been portrayed as the prelude to what transpired at the Capitol?
“How can liberals not recognize their own playbook?”
Way too many words, nerm…way too little context.