The Founders Anticipated the Threat of Trump

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

NBC News
Chuck Todd: Voters will likely ‘be stuck with the burden of upholding’ law if Trump is convicted

"Voters next fall may be faced with an unprecedented choice, says Meet the Press Moderator and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd: Put fmr. President Trump back in the White House, or essentially sign off on his sentencing if he is convicted and send him to prison or Secret Service-protected home confinement."

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Here’s the thing. The left has been claiming insurrection for a long time now, so, why wasn’t insurrection one of the charges in the indictment?

That’s a good question. First of all “the Left” is not a single thing, by any means, and the Florida and D.C. indictments of Trump were formulated very carefully so that there is a maximum chance of conviction by jurors normally voting for either party. For the sake of the country itself the indictments and the evidence supporting them must be very strong and the logic presented linking them must be convincing to even citizens who have supported Trump in the past.

The talk of “insurrection” was originally, imo, wrongly used by some especially as it was then too narrowly associated with the Jan. 6th events and the invasion of Congress only. That was criminal activity for which individuals could be and were easily convicted on narrower charges, as was appropriate in their individual cases. The present indictments against Trump and probably a few others involve extremely serious charges, involving conspiracy, obstructing the election, fraudulently trying to change not just a few votes but the electoral votes of whole states.

I think not charging the ex-President with trying to lead an “insurrection” (really it was a “auto-golpe” since Trump was still President) was a wise move. It would have weakened the case in the eyes of many, which is now very strong. As is, some of the charges may still be difficult to prove to some jurors, even though they all are — I believe — appropriate.

 

[Lastamender]

That’s a good question. First of all “the Left” is not a single thing, by any means, and the Florida and D.C. indictments of Trump were formulated very carefully so that there is a maximum chance of conviction. This means the evidence must be very strong and the logic presented must be convincing to the jury.

The talk of “insurrection” was originally, imo, wrongly used by some especially as it was then too narrowly associated with the Jan. 6th events and the invasion of Congress. That was criminal activity for which individuals could be and were easily convicted on narrower charges, as was appropriate in their individual cases. The present indictments involve extremely serious charges, involving conspiracy, obstructing the election, fraudulently trying to change not a few votes but the electoral votes of whole states.

I think not charging the ex-President with trying to lead a seditious “insurrection” was a wise move. It would have weakened the case in the eyes of many, which is now very strong. As is, some of the charges may be difficult to prove to some jurors, true as they all are.

Total hyperbolic bullshit. They have no case.

 

[Billiejeens]

Total hyperbolic bullshit. They have no case.

Paine is a senile old fuck who doesn't know shit.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Here is an interesting question: Would the “Founding Fathers,” in such a case, advocate an open (today that would mean televised) trial? Is it today in the best interests of the country?

Donald Trump’s lawyer has reportedly requested this, and our very Conservative Supreme Court may eventually rule on it. I believe it is a good idea, even though such Federal Trials are by custom not televised.

We will have millions of Americans following the important D.C & Florida cases via their favorite media “spin doctors” in any case. We have seen there is virtually no possibility of a national consensus developing this way.

But a courtroom trial before a jury is very different, since both sides can present arguments and evidence (which the Judge can control for “relevance”) and the prosecution and defense cases are not made primarily to reinforce the political prejudices of an uninformed audience, but to convince jurors who in the course of the trial will hear abundant testimony, evidence and arguments from both sides.

Whatever the trial outcome, an open televised trial in my opinion will be an important way to educate viewers.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Note: My comment above I more or less turned into a separate thread topic, because I suspect it will become a more widely diacussed issue in the future.

See: Should the federal trials against Donald Trump be televised?

 

[ThisIsMe]

That’s a good question. First of all “the Left” is not a single thing, by any means, and the Florida and D.C. indictments of Trump were formulated very carefully so that there is a maximum chance of conviction by jurors normally voting for either party. For the sake of the country itself the indictments and the evidence supporting them must be very strong and the logic presented linking them must be convincing to even citizens who have supported Trump in the past.

The talk of “insurrection” was originally, imo, wrongly used by some especially as it was then too narrowly associated with the Jan. 6th events and the invasion of Congress only. That was criminal activity for which individuals could be and were easily convicted on narrower charges, as was appropriate in their individual cases. The present indictments against Trump and probably a few others involve extremely serious charges, involving conspiracy, obstructing the election, fraudulently trying to change not just a few votes but the electoral votes of whole states.

I think not charging the ex-President with trying to lead an “insurrection” (really it was a “auto-golpe” since Trump was still President) was a wise move. It would have weakened the case in the eyes of many, which is now very strong. As is, some of the charges may still be difficult to prove to some jurors, even though they all are — I believe — appropriate.

Ok, so what you’re saying is, they “formulated” the indictments so that, in as many possible outcomes as they can find, there will be a guilty verdict. Sounds like word games to me. Sounds like they are trying to get anything, no matter how vague, to stick. Is that justice? Trying to throw everything at the board until something sticks? That’s suspiciously political.

involving conspiracy, obstructing the election, fraudulently trying to change not just a few votes but the electoral votes of whole states.

I’ve mentioned this a few times, but it’s relevant, and that is, so you believe that national popular vote compact that 18 states have signed on to is a legal and valid thing? Ignoring the votes of the people of a state in order to award electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote? Wouldn’t that be fraudulently changing the electoral votes of a whole state, and disenfranchising the voters?

 

[ThisIsMe]

That’s a good question. First of all “the Left” is not a single thing, by any means, and the Florida and D.C. indictments of Trump were formulated very carefully so that there is a maximum chance of conviction by jurors normally voting for either party. For the sake of the country itself the indictments and the evidence supporting them must be very strong and the logic presented linking them must be convincing to even citizens who have supported Trump in the past.

The talk of “insurrection” was originally, imo, wrongly used by some especially as it was then too narrowly associated with the Jan. 6th events and the invasion of Congress only. That was criminal activity for which individuals could be and were easily convicted on narrower charges, as was appropriate in their individual cases. The present indictments against Trump and probably a few others involve extremely serious charges, involving conspiracy, obstructing the election, fraudulently trying to change not just a few votes but the electoral votes of whole states.

I think not charging the ex-President with trying to lead an “insurrection” (really it was a “auto-golpe” since Trump was still President) was a wise move. It would have weakened the case in the eyes of many, which is now very strong. As is, some of the charges may still be difficult to prove to some jurors, even though they all are — I believe — appropriate.

Also, when you say the left is not a single thing, it is certainly a fact that the left has been single minded about their hate for trump, and their desire to see him disqualified.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

MAGA has been single minded in their love for Mr. Trump and hate for his opponents.

 

[ThisIsMe]

MAGA has been single minded in their love for Mr. Trump and hate for his opponents.

Actually, I’ve seen the right be more opposed to trump than I have the left being opposed to Biden. That’s the difference. You will find pundits who will criticize and even disagree with trump, you’d be hard pressed to find any left wing media to disagree with Biden. They just don’t do it. “Lock step” is what describes them.

 

[Rogue AI]

As usual, liberals and their Never Trump trash, have it completely backwards. What the Founders foresaw was corrupt, petty, and vindictive scum, like the above, attempting to prosecute and persecute political rivals. To counter such evil the Founders created the lowest possible threshold to become president. Meaning that petty charges, like Trump faces, could not keep him from office. Even though Trump faces the full force of government corruption, the People can save themselves and bring him back, regardless of useless indictments or even convictions.

 

[luiza]

The Founders Anticipated the Threat of Trump​

Of course they did. Most of them were freemasons. And The Donald is -- 33rd Degree allegedly -- top dog . Not Cult Christians and in DTs case a nice Jewish boy .

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The childish and soporific replies (and even implied threats) of Trumpsters like progressive hunter and theHawk says a lot about how truly unconcerned they are about Trump’s threat to our Republic and “the rule of law.”

Do you think President Biden is of the capacity of wits that our civics lesson about the presidency describes? And, doesn't it kind of reinforce for Black people that a Black person has to do twice the work to receive half of the credit of a White person?

Don't you see the irony?

And the same thing with nominating Hillary.

We will have to decide, all of us, what to do about our ever crazier and more vengeful ex-President, how we view his past lawless attempts to prevent the legal transfer of power, and how we must react to his renewed attempt to become a would be “King”-like authoritarian leader.

So, you believe it is possible for that to happen - you do not trust the founders' deployment of the Three-part Separation Theory???

Or maybe you are annoyed that it's taking so long. Just think about how long the people have been waiting to lock her up?

This is not going to end like anyone imagines.

Trump just paid his lawyers $60M!!!!!!!

The famous comment of Benjamin Franklin when asked what our Founding Fathers in their wisdom had created, is most relevant to all of us, and will be tested in the 2024 election. He replied:

“A Republic … if you can keep it.”

Yeah, well, the legend has it that he said this before that.

I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error.

I don't think you have the open mind or wealth of a true liberal thinker.

Amazon product

All are Welcome to Participate in the Deliberate, Orderly, and Peaceful, Revolution of the United States.

The United States Fourth Continental Congress is Commissioned to Identify a Reliable Government Model, and then Deliberate and Validate a Reliable Government Charter System for the Succeeding Trials of the American Experiment.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

As usual, liberals and their Never Trump trash, have it completely backwards.

No. Nobody knows what happens after the Twelfth Amendment - there is very little certainty in the system. The organization of the government needed to be reordered, but nobody had anything to inspire a better system of checks and balances.

What the Founders foresaw was corrupt, petty, and vindictive scum, like the above, attempting to prosecute and persecute political rivals.
To counter such evil the Founders created the lowest possible threshold to become president. Meaning that petty charges, like Trump faces, could not keep him from office.

Get the fuck out of here. They were not weaving that together. The Justice Department was not established until after the Civil War, genius.

Even though Trump faces the full force of government corruption, the People can save themselves and bring him back, regardless of useless indictments or even convictions.

Why the fuck did the founders leave that gaping hole in the system?

Or did they weave that in there on purpose, too?

 

[Rogue AI]

No. Nobody knows what happens after the Twelfth Amendment - there is very little certainty in the system. The organization of the government needed to be reordered, but nobody had anything to inspire a better system of checks and balances.


Get the fuck out of here. They were not weaving that together. The Justice Department was not established until after the Civil War, genius.



Why the fuck did the founders leave that gaping hole in the system?

Or did they weave that in there on purpose, too?

Don't be so silly, or stop spouting absolute ignorance. The requirements, or lack thereof, to become president precede the 12th. Do you not know that?

There were federal laws and enforcement prior to the inception of the Justice Department. Your arguments have no merit.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Authoritarian demagogues like Trump are who The Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed our system. Thankfully, it held, even though MAGA and other craven Republicans tried to subvert it. They'll try another time in 2024 if/when they lose again.

The allegations in the indictment of Donald Trump for conspiring to overturn the election of 2020 represent the American Founders’ nightmare. A key concern of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton was that demagogues would incite mobs and factions to defy the rule of law, overturn free and fair elections and undermine American democracy. “The only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1790. “When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper…is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity,” Hamilton warned, “he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”​

​

The Founders designed a constitutional system to prevent demagogues from sowing confusion and mob violence in precisely this way. The vast extent of the country, Madison said, would make it hard for local factions to coordinate any kind of mass mobilization. The horizontal separation of powers among the three branches of government would ensure that the House impeached and the Senate convicted corrupt presidents. The vertical division of powers between the states and the federal government would ensure that local officials ensured election integrity.​

​

And norms about the peaceful transfer of power, strengthened by George Washington’s towering example of voluntarily stepping down from office after two terms, would ensure that no elected president could convert himself, like Caesar, into an unelected dictator. “The idea of introducing a monarchy or aristocracy into this Country,” Hamilton wrote, “is one of those visionary things, that none but madmen could meditate,” as long as the American people resisted “convulsions and disorders in consequence of the acts of popular demagogues.”​

​

According to the federal indictment issued this week, President Trump attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election by conspiring to spread such “convulsions and disorders” through a series of knowing lies. The indictment alleges that soon after election day, Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results,” perpetuating three separate criminal conspiracies: to impede the collection and counting of the ballots, Congress’s certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2021, and the right to vote itself.​

​

The indictment alleges that all three conspiracies involved a concerted effort by Trump and his co-conspirators to subvert the election results using “knowingly false claims of election fraud.” In particular, Trump allegedly “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states”; tried to use “the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations”; tried to enlist Vice President Mike Pence “to fraudulently alter the election results”; and, as violence broke out on Jan. 6, redoubled his efforts to “convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.”​

Essay | The Founders Anticipated the Threat of Trump

This week’s indictment of the former president outlines the sort of demagogic challenge to the rule of law that the Constitution’s architects most feared.

www.wsj.com

This is the kind of stupid shit that happens with having an internet.

 

[Godboy]

Authoritarian demagogues like Trump are who The Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed our system. Thankfully, it held, even though MAGA and other craven Republicans tried to subvert it. They'll try another time in 2024 if/when they lose again.

The allegations in the indictment of Donald Trump for conspiring to overturn the election of 2020 represent the American Founders’ nightmare. A key concern of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton was that demagogues would incite mobs and factions to defy the rule of law, overturn free and fair elections and undermine American democracy. “The only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1790. “When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper…is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity,” Hamilton warned, “he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”​

​

The Founders designed a constitutional system to prevent demagogues from sowing confusion and mob violence in precisely this way. The vast extent of the country, Madison said, would make it hard for local factions to coordinate any kind of mass mobilization. The horizontal separation of powers among the three branches of government would ensure that the House impeached and the Senate convicted corrupt presidents. The vertical division of powers between the states and the federal government would ensure that local officials ensured election integrity.​

​

And norms about the peaceful transfer of power, strengthened by George Washington’s towering example of voluntarily stepping down from office after two terms, would ensure that no elected president could convert himself, like Caesar, into an unelected dictator. “The idea of introducing a monarchy or aristocracy into this Country,” Hamilton wrote, “is one of those visionary things, that none but madmen could meditate,” as long as the American people resisted “convulsions and disorders in consequence of the acts of popular demagogues.”​

​

According to the federal indictment issued this week, President Trump attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election by conspiring to spread such “convulsions and disorders” through a series of knowing lies. The indictment alleges that soon after election day, Trump “pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results,” perpetuating three separate criminal conspiracies: to impede the collection and counting of the ballots, Congress’s certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2021, and the right to vote itself.​

​

The indictment alleges that all three conspiracies involved a concerted effort by Trump and his co-conspirators to subvert the election results using “knowingly false claims of election fraud.” In particular, Trump allegedly “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states”; tried to use “the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations”; tried to enlist Vice President Mike Pence “to fraudulently alter the election results”; and, as violence broke out on Jan. 6, redoubled his efforts to “convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.”​

Essay | The Founders Anticipated the Threat of Trump

This week’s indictment of the former president outlines the sort of demagogic challenge to the rule of law that the Constitution’s architects most feared.

www.wsj.com

I think its abundantly clear that Trump believes the election was stolen. He has been a broken record about it for a couple years straight. There is no ambiguity here. He literally just got annoyed with an interviewer not long ago for pushing back on his claim that it was stolen.

Does anyone have ANY evidence that Trump DIDNT think it was stolen because, we have a gazzillion videos of Trump saying that it was.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I think its abundantly clear that Trump believes the election was stolen. He has been a broken record about it for a couple years straight. There is no ambiguity here. He literally just got annoyed with an interviewer not long ago for pushing back on his claim that it was stolen.

Does anyone have ANY evidence that Trump DIDNT think it was stolen because, we have a gazzillion videos of Trump saying that it was.

Apparently the prosecution has witness testimony that indicates Trump knew all along, or at least indicates that any sane individual in his position (with his unparalleled access to all the Republican election officials in swing states) would have known all along.

Trump’s public posturing is precisely part of the asserted “Big Lie” that provides a backdrop for some but not all of the federal charges against him. Trump is not pleading insanity or incompetence nor can he reasonably argue that he was misled by his lawyers or officials to believe he won.

 

[Godboy]

Apparently the prosecution has witness testimony that indicates Trump knew all along, or at least indicates that any sane individual in his position (with his unparalleled access to all the Republican election officials in swing states) would have known all along.

Trump’s public posturing is precisely part of the asserted “Big Lie” that provides a backdrop for some but not all of the federal charges against him. Trump is not pleading insanity or incompetence nor can he reasonably argue that he was misled by his lawyers or officials to believe he won.

Im doubtful that their witness is going to help, UNLESS he claims that Trump straight up said "i dont believe the election was stolen", which i highly doubt. Trump is an egomaniac. In his mind he never loses.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Actually, I’ve seen the right be more opposed to trump than I have the left being opposed to Biden. That’s the difference. You will find pundits who will criticize and even disagree with trump, you’d be hard pressed to find any left wing media to disagree with Biden. They just don’t do it. “Lock step” is what describes them.

No, you have not.