Will Someone Please Tell Me What Donald Trump's "Side Of The Story" Is Regarding Jan 6 ?

  
By:  John Russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  32 comments


Will Someone Please Tell Me What Donald Trump's "Side Of The Story" Is Regarding Jan 6 ?
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks



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

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago
he is a lying sack of shit who abused his office

This...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    4 weeks ago
... 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?

Absolutely!

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.

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    4 weeks ago

I dont expect many right wingers to respond to this challenge. One would be nice. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
3  Revillug    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

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.

-

As Capitol police battled rioters, Secret Service agents feared for their lives, and legislators fled to safety, I sat in my oval office dining room and refused pleas to call it off .

-

For hours, I watched television, never once calling the Defense Department, the D.C. National Guard, or anyone else in law enforcement.

-

Instead I dialed senators urging them to delay the certification of the presidential vote. And amidst the height of the chaos and the terror, I inflamed the mob I had sent by sending out a tweet attacking my own vice president.

-

I didn’t call off the mob,  because it was doing precisely what I wanted ; and I was using the delay caused by the attack to lobby my allies to help execute my coup.

-

Only when it was apparent that the assault on the Capitol had failed, did I bother to call off my insurrection.

-

The next day,  I refused to say that the election was over, even after the violence, and after the congressional vote to certify Joe Biden’s victory.

-

It’s not true that I “did nothing” while the capitol was under attack. I specifically, deliberately, and maliciously sent out a tweet to put a target on Mike Pence’s back while Pence was being whisked away to safety from the mob.

-

The committee highlighted all of the attempts to get me to do something,  anything , to stop the violence. The belated result was a bizarre video in which I repeated my lies about the election, and told the rioters, "Go home, we love you. You are very special.”

-

At 1:49 p.m. D.C. Metropolitan Police declared there was a riot at the Capitol. At that same moment, I tweeted a video of my “fight like hell” speech at the Ellipse so my followers would hear my inciting message once again.

-

As senators scurried out of the chamber,I  dialed up GOP Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Josh Hawley to encourage them to delay counting Electoral College votes.

-

I also called Rudy Giuliani twice that day. I did not call make any calls to the Defense Secretary, Attorney General, or Department of Homeland Security Secretary.

-

I accepted a call from a then-House “scared” GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, who begged me for help.  I promptly ignored McCarthy’s pleas for help and told McCarthy: “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

-

“I told Mark Meadows "Mike deserves it, I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong” about those who wanted to hurt Pence. 

-

Based on 
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

I cannot suspend disbelief enough to conceive of Trump telling the truth.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5    4 weeks ago
That's the biggest fear of his political opponents.

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1    4 weeks ago
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.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

A hearing or trial is not a popularity contest, Nerm.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.2    4 weeks ago
A hearing or trial is not a popularity contest, Nerm.

Really?  Then explain why the Jan. 6th committee conducted a publicity event.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
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.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.5    4 weeks ago
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?

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    4 weeks ago
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.  

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.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.6    4 weeks ago

Does it hurt, stretching that far?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    4 weeks ago
Publicizing and televising the hearings are not a requirement for investigation.

No, but that is a very good way to provide the information to the public.

The investigative work had already been done and the facts had already been gathered before the hearings were televised.

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?

The public hearings were a staged reenactment of testimony obtained in closed session.  

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?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.8    3 weeks ago
Does it hurt, stretching that far?

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?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.1.11  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.9    3 weeks ago
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?

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.11    3 weeks ago
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.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.10    3 weeks ago
You condemned Fox News for not televising the hearings.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.13    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5    4 weeks ago
Trump is accused of attempting a coup by NOT sending in the military?

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.

Of course there wasn't any fraud during the election. 

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?   

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Nerm_L @5    4 weeks ago

“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. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.3.1  Nerm_L  replied to  afrayedknot @5.3    4 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @5    4 weeks ago
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? 

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. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
5.4.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4    4 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
6  afrayedknot    4 weeks ago

“How can liberals not recognize their own playbook?”

Way too many words, nerm…way too little context. 

 
 

Who is online