Who can identify the five lies in Trump’s 8:17 AM Tweet on his upcoming Stop the Steal insurrection?

[San Souci]

Do you own your own home plus any additional properties?


Do you agree with the following poster describing one of Trump’s crimes;

Correll wrote: They had "plans" to use the protest to put political pressure on Pence and Congress to try to decertify the election and thus win it by political or procedural means.

Bullshit.

 

[lennypartiv]

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Who can identify the idiot who started this thread?

Because I don't care to participate in YOUR partisan hypocrisy.

And that gives you an excuse to have a little hissy fit about his actions,

Hissy fit eh?

WSJ Just had a big one.
Donald Trump has lost the confidence of both of the major newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

Under the headline, "The President Who Stood Still on Jan. 6," The Wall Street Journal editorial board harshly criticized the former president.

"No matter your views of the Jan. 6 special committee, the facts it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump’s conduct as the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help," the editorial board wrote.

"The committee’s critics are right that it lacks political balance," the newspaper wrote. "Still, the brute facts remain: Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as Commander in Chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn’t call the military to send help. He didn’t call Mr. Pence to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob’s anger and let the riot play out."

'Incitement by silence': Rupert Murdoch's newspapers blister Trump after J6 hearings

The editorial concluded, "Character is revealed in a crisis, and Mr. Pence passed his Jan. 6 trial. Mr. Trump utterly failed his."

Trump was also criticized by the NY Post editorial board under the headline, "Trump's silence on Jan. 6 is damning."




Correll wrote: They had "plans" to use the protest to put political pressure on Pence and Congress to try to decertify the election and thus win it by political or procedural means.

 

[Orangecat]

Well, my question has been answered. Lol.

 

[Batcat]

Really doesn't matter if the republicans want to run a presidential candidate in 2024 or not. Nobody will be forgetting that a huge chunk of the republican party is perfectly fine with what trump did. Nobody going forget. Nobody in their right mind would trust anybody running for presidency on that party ticket, that soon, and certainly not trump's VP, as he supported him all the way until he was ask to sacrifice himself by the orange asshole.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, nobody will be forgetting the rise in gasoline price and the skyrocketing inflation Joe Biden brought when he took over the Oval Office. Add to that the increasing crime rate caused by Democrats defunding the police and letting criminals out without posting bail. Some voters will remember the drug stores they used to go to until they were forced to shut down due to shoplifters.

Of course that assumes the old corrupt grifter with dementia in the Oval Office today doesn’t mange to get us into an all out nuclear war with Putin’s Russia.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Well, my question has been answered. Lol.

Your cult leader is complete failure and derelict of duty per WSJ. Who would be the idiot that still supports a treasonous lying coward for President.

 

[White 6]

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, nobody will be forgetting the rise in gasoline price and the skyrocketing inflation Joe Biden brought when he took over the Oval Office. Add to that the increasing crime rate caused by Democrats defunding the police and letting criminals out without posting bail. Some voters will remember the drug stores they used to go to until they were forced to shut down due to shoplifters.

Of course that assumes the old corrupt grifter with dementia in the Oval Office today doesn’t mange to get us into an all out nuclear war with Putin’s Russia.

I would easily consider a republican or even a democrat offering an alternative, but only rule out one willing to end our form of government as we know it. Donny's post election BS confirms what I knew about him from the beginning, a non-starter for me then and a non-starter for me anytime in the future, along with trump sycophants.

 

[Orangecat]

Your cult leader is complete failure and derelict of duty per WSJ. Who would be the idiot that still supports a treasonous lying coward for President.

I don't belong to a cult, son, and you are the idiot that started this thread. Flail some more, retard.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

rise in gasoline pric

It’s gone down 80 cents the past five weeks. Thank you Joe. It won’t cost that much to drive Trump to Leavenworth.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

don't belong to a cult,

If you think I’m an idiot for pointing out Trump is a lying treasonous good for nothing human being you are in a cult

 

[Orangecat]

If you think I’m an idiot for pointing out Trump is a lying treasonous good for nothing human being you are in a cult

No, I think you're an idiot because you post like an idiot.
See the post I'm responding to for irrefutable proof.
Also, learn to use commas, you illiterate imbecile.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No, I think you're an idiot because you post like an idiot.

Then you are a liar . . you said I was the idiot that started this thread about Trump being a liar and attempting to overturn the election .

Now the WSJ says this.

"Still, the brute facts remain: Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as Commander in Chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn’t call the military to send help. He didn’t call Mr. Pence to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob’s anger and let the riot play out."​

So there you are Orangecat you now should know Trump sat on his fat ass on Jan6 in the WH dining room for three hours watching the US Capitol being attacked under JESUS, Q, TRUMP and confederate traitor flags. He poured gasoline on the fire tweeting to the mob that Pence was a coward, And you still have your lips planted on Trump’s fat derelict of duty ass while bitching about a comma I put in a post on a message board. You are in a cult - no other explanation is available.

 

[Orangecat]

Then you are a liar . . you said I was the idiot that started this thread about Trump being a liar and attempting to overturn the election .

Lol. You're an idiot for multiple reasons, clown.

 

[Batcat]

It’s gone down 80 cents the past five weeks. Thank you Joe. It won’t cost that much to drive Trump to Leavenworth.

The price of gasoline may have dropped but it is still well above where it was at when Trump left office. It my well increase agaIn in the near future. The Democrats will try their best to keep the price of gasoline low before the midterms but time will tell.

If your statement about Trump going to Leavenworth is based on the Jan 6th Hearings keep in mine you have only heard the prosecution‘s side of the case.

 

[Batcat]

I would easily consider a republican or even a democrat offering an alternative, but only rule out one willing to end our form of government as we know it. Donny's post election BS confirms what I knew about him from the beginning, a non-starter for me then and a non-starter for me anytime in the future, along with trump sycophants.

Our current federal government is corrupt beyond belief which is why it is called the “Swamp.” Plus it is obvious that we have different rules of law for Trump supporters and liberal Democrats. Outsiders vc insiders.

Imagine what would have happened if Don Trump Jr. had left a laptop at a computer shop containing the damning evidence that Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell contains. Rumors are that Hunter will face prosecution but my bet is he gets a light slap on the wrist and basically gets to waltz away scot-free. Joe Biden of course will not even be implicated for selling his influence.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

If your statement about Trump going to Leavenworth is based on the Jan 6th Hearings keep in mine you have only heard the prosecution‘s side of the case.

Bullshit! If any MAGA moron had a eyewitness explanation as to why Trump sat on his fat ass in the dining room watching our nation being attacked and do nothing to defend it they can go to the Committee and explain why Trump did what he did and why it was great for the country

nobody in theIr right mind would do that,

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Vance Says He'd Have Gone Along With Trump's Plot To Block Certification of the 2020 Election

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2023/12/The-Right-to-Rage_Turley.pdf

Vance Says He'd Have Gone Along With Trump's Plot To Block Certification of the 2020 Election

What Eastman proposed (and what Vance is nodding along with) is a reversal of all that: a substitution of the vice president's and Congress' opinion for the will of the voters. That's not constitutional, democratic, or even populist. It's just authoritarian.​

If he had been vice president on January 6, 2021, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) says he would have gone along withthe Trump administration's plot to block Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.

"I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters," Vance said during an appearance on the All-In podcast. When pressed by co-host Jason Calacanis to clarify whether he would have refused to certify the election, Vance stressed that he wanted to have "a big debate, and that doesn't necessarily mean the results would have been any different."

This sounds somewhat more innocuous than it is. What Vance is saying is that he would have gone along with the next steps in the procedure drawn up by some of then-President Donald Trump's lawyers (led by John Eastman), who crafted a plan to open up the certification process.

Understanding the full scope of Vance's answer requires a quick recap of how Trump's lawyers wanted January 6, 2021, to play out. The so-called Eastman memo outlined the necessary steps to prevent a transfer of power. It proposed that officials in a handful of states won narrowly by Joe Biden should submit alternative slates of electors and that then-Vice President Mike Pence should invoke his unilateral authority "without asking for permission—either from a vote of the joint session [of Congress] or from the [Supreme Court]"—to count only the Trump-supporting slates from those states.

If state legislators in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other disputed states failed to take the bait, there was a backup plan in which Pence would cite "all the evidence and the letters from state legislators calling into question the executive certifications" as grounds for refusing to count the votes from seven disputed states.

"At the end of the count, the tally would therefore be 232 for Trump, 222 for Biden," Eastman wrote. "Because the 12th Amendment says 'majority of electors appointed,' having determined that no electors from the 7 states were appointed…TRUMP WINS."

It's unknown whether this would have worked. Certainly, it would have drawn an immediate lawsuit from the Biden campaign, but it's unclear how the Supreme Court would have viewed its role in such a dispute.

Crucially, Pence refused to play his part in the scheme. For doing so, he's become a pariah in Republican politics—though he deserves to be remembered for maintaining his courage in the face of both a literal and metaphorical partisan mob.

Vance indicated in the All-In interview that he would be willing to do the opposite. Asked twice whether he would refuse to certify the election, Vance fell back both times to his claim that he would have simply asked states to submit alternative slates of electors and allowed Congress to have a debate about what to do.

That's a cowardly response that fails to give a clear answer, but there can be no doubt about the signal Vance is sending. He is effectively saying that he'd have followed the path outlined in the Eastman memo—a path that would allow the vice president to claim he was merely letting Congress debate the outcome, and then use the chaos and uncertainty created by that same debate to throw out the results from certain states in pursuit of a different outcome.

That Vance was saying those things earlier in the year likely bolstered his chance of becoming Trump's running mate. The fact that he's still saying them now should be a more serious red flag about what he'd do if elevated to the position of vice president.

It's also worth engaging with the underlying notion here: that the country or Congress needs to debate the results of the election. That is also nonsense.

The country did debate the 2020 election. For months. Votes were cast, results were tallied, and the Electoral College determined the winner. The final certification of the results is not the time or place for that debate to take place. Indeed, the Trump campaign took advantage of many other opportunities that are built into the system to challenge results in specific places, and none of those efforts found systemic fraud or other reasons to doubt the outcome.

One of the great things about America's electoral system—despite its frustrations and faults—is how decentralized it is. It is robust exactly because there is no central office counting every vote, and there are myriad checks and double-checks that occur as results are passed upward from precinct to county to state and, finally, to Congress.

What Eastman proposed (and what Vance is nodding along with) is a reversal of all that: a substitution of the vice president's and Congress' opinion for the will of the voters. That's not constitutional, democratic, or even populist. It's just authoritarian.

The post Vance Says He'd Have Gone Along With Trump's Plot To Block Certification of the 2020 Electionappeared first on Reason.com.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

“The Illegality…Was Obvious”: An Analysis of the Carter Opinion on Jan. 6th

“The illegality of the plan was obvious.” Those words of Judge David O. Carter in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California this week have electrified commentators across the n…

jonathanturley.org

Dennis McIntyre says:
April 3, 2022 at 11:19 AM

Jonathan: I read all of Judge Carter’s 44 page decision in the Eastman case. I must have read a different decision than the one you have distorted. The one I read does not raise either “free speech” or “attorney-client privilege” issues. On the latter Judge Carter ruled against Eastman on his claims. That’s the part you apparently missed in your reading.

You say Judge Carter “notes that Eastman still believes that the statute [ECA] is unconstitutional”. That’s irrelevant. Carter found that Trump/Eastman violated 18USC, Sec. 1512(c) which makes it a crime to obstruct or attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Carter points out that Eastman “likely knew that the plan was unlawful. Dr. Eastman heard from numerous mentors and like-minded colleagues [e.g., former conservative jurist Luttig] that his plan had no basis in history or precedent…Eastman admitted more than once that his proposal violate[d] several provisions of statutory law”. Judge Carter concluded: “Dr. Eastman likely admitted deceitfully and dishonestly each time he pushed an outcome-driven plan that he knew was unsupported by the law”. If Eastman actually had a good-faith belief the ECA was unconstitutional why didn’t he urge Trump to challenge the Act in court. As Judge Carter points out Eastman admitted that if the case reached the Supreme Court it would rejected–9 to 0. Well, maybe 8-1 with Clarence Thomas as the sole dissenter!

Based on the evidence Judge Carter found Trump/Eastman violated 2 federal criminal statutes. I must have read a different decision than the one you read from which you conclude, falsely, that Trump/Eastman did not engage in a “criminal or fraudulent effort”. But you cling to a specious argument that “some attorneys believed (and still believe) that it was possible for Pence to refuse to certify”. Who might those attorneys be? It appears it’s only John Eastman! Trump/Eastman knew their plan was unlawful and that’s why they should be prosecuted. Let’s hope AG Garland has the cajones to act because no one, not even a former president, is above the law.

F

 

[whutTHEYsay]

A Crisis Of Faith: Why We Should Be Worried More About A Desecration Than An Insurrection

Below is my column in the Hill on the riot at Congress and its implications for our country. As shown by the unfounded rush for a “snap impeachment,” we are experiencing a crisis of fa…

jonathanturley.org

Below is my column in the Hill on the riot at Congress and its implications for our country. As shown by the unfounded rush for a “snap impeachment,” we are experiencing a crisis of faith in this country — not only in our Constitution but ourselves. Pushing for a snap vote (and snap judgment) on these issues will only exacerbate our divisions. This is a time for deliberative, not impulsive, action in Congress.

Here is the column:

All the images of protesters scaling the walls of the Capitol and briefly occupying Congress will remain seared in our collective memories for decades. Some called it a riot. Others called it an insurrection. Whatever you call it, it was a desecration. The rioters desecrated the most sacred moment of our constitutional system when the nation comes together to certify our next president. That is why it is too easy to treat this like an insurrection crisis. It is far more dangerous. It is a crisis of faith.

There were some truly dangerous people in this mix, such as the agitators who had pipe bombs and ropes. Groups like the Proud Boys and antifa have fulfilled these roles in violent riots on the left and the right for years. However, the vast majority of protesters on Wednesday were nonviolent. Indeed, if this was a real effort at insurrection, we can take great comfort that many of our homegrown revolutionaries have come across as more Groucho Marx than Karl Marx. Those in the Capitol were spread across the spectrum, from mocking to menacing. There were the various costumed characters but also men in camo with suspicious backpacks. Yet the guy taking a selfie with his feet on the desk of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed more interested in Instagram than insurrection.

The ease with which protesters entered the Capitol was shocking. Despite reports in advance of their plans to march there, Capitol Police seemed undermanned and unprepared. Once inside, protesters seemed to have the run of the building. Many of them seemed as shocked as the members of Congress fleeing the House and Senate chambers. This has happened before, although not to this extent. When I was a young page in Congress, a protest by truckers led to an ornate Capitol building door getting broken down, followed by a rampage through the halls of Congress.

The media portrayed the disgraceful rioters as unimaginable. Yet it was entirely all too imaginable. We have had four years of violent protests, including the attacks on federal buildings, members of Congress, and symbols of our democracy. Former Attorney General William Barr was heavily criticized for clearing Lafayette Square last year after protesters injured numerous law enforcement officers, were injured themselves, burned a historic building, caused property damage, and threatened to breach the White House grounds. There were violent riots during the inauguration of Donald Trump and a lethal assault on some Republican lawmakers playing softball. Indeed, this year started as last year ended, with attacks on federal buildings in Portland and other cities.

Several people viewed those violent protests against the police and the White House as sedition, including Barr. I criticized such labeling of Black Lives Matter or antifa riots as sedition or terrorism. I view those labels as undermining free speech. As with the Black Lives Matter movement, I do not believe most of the protesters this week were rioters, let alone part of an insurrection. As with the protests last year, some instigators pushed for confrontations. But most were at the Capitol to voice an opposition to the certification of votes in an election they believe was stolen. I do not share that view, but it is held by some 40 percent of Americans.

What are these people if they are not insurgents or terrorists? The answer is they are faithless. We face a crisis of faith rather than of revolution. Our Constitution is an article of faith. This republic was founded by a leap of faith taken together by people of different backgrounds and beliefs. Yet the Constitution, no matter how well crafted, is ineffectual if people lose faith in its system or, just as important, in each other.

Our system is designed to give everyone skin in the game. It is meant to bring factional interests to the surface. Unlike those that ignore them, our Constitution forces those out into the open in Congress, where they can be voiced and addressed. Systems that ignore all such divisions explode from within, like in the history of France. Our system is based on a type of implosion in which those pressures are directed into Congress, where factional interests are turned into majority compromises.

The violence this week is not what James Madison hoped for in noting the factional interests in Congress. It was a bit too direct for a system based on representative democracy. However, that is precisely the point. Such action taken reflects the same crisis of faith that was evident in Lafayette Park and on the streets of Portland. That is far more dangerous than a few agitators using a protest to commit mayhem. It is not anarchy but instead alienation that we should fear the most in our nation.

For years, the public has shown a lack of trust and faith in our political system. There also is a wide rejection of the media, which once was a shared resource for information. The media has destroyed its credibility with years of bias, including blackouts on stories viewed as harmful to Democrats. Without faith in our leaders or the media, more than half of this nation appears to be untethered from the political system. That detachment is perilous for a representative government.

We need to hold accountable all those who committed violence in the Capitol. However, after we determine who stormed Congress and how they succeeded in doing it, we have a far more difficult task to address. After all, an insurrection can simply be put down, but a desecration is much more insidious and dangerous for our democracy.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

 

[jc456]

Bullshit! If any MAGA moron had a eyewitness explanation as to why Trump sat on his fat ass in the dining room watching our nation being attacked and do nothing to defend it they can go to the Committee and explain why Trump did what he did and why it was great for the country

nobody in theIr right mind would do that,

fbi will be less many agents as a result of all of this.