Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

The excerpt presents the facts in dishonest way. Trump was definitely not hoping for more inquiry into the vote count.

Trump already knew he had lost. He wasn't hoping for inquiry. He knew and supported submitting different electors that would ignore the legitimate vote counts and instead vote for Trump.

Althouse is very dishonest in how she presents that. Not only is she dishonest, she's dishonest in a way to minimize Trump's actions while ignoring his desire to cheat the election to stay in power.

Trump said he knew they were armed and to let them in and they'd be able to go to the capitol from there.

Trump and his team knew about the plans for violence before he ever made the speech. It was written and addressed in briefings.

Yet, Althouse just puts forward the idea that he wanted a photo op. It's just crazy.

 

Yeah I don't get what Althouse is writing about here. Of course Trump wanted a huge attention grabbing protests. He would've have been sending out Tweets inviting his supporters to DC on Jan. 6th saying "IT WILL BE WILD!" if he didn't.

As for wanting an inquiry he had several opportunties to ask for an inquiry. His DOJ starting looking into claims irregularities even before the election. His campaign actually turned down an opportunity for a recount in WI because they had to pay for it. What happened was that by Jan. 6th they had exhausted every legal recourse.

Also if he really just wanted an inquiry why did he tell GA Sec. of State "just find me 11,800 votes"? If this was just an inquiry why ask for that specific number?

 

You don't think Trump still believes he won? I absolutely do. Every person who voted could tell him how they voted and he would still believe he won. He is a narcissist.

 

No. He knew he lost. His team told him on mukitiple occasions that he lost and the investigations had shown it. His own daughter had told him.

His response was to tell the DOJ to just say it was a fraud anyway and let him and the Republican congressmen handle it from there.

There are multiple sources that have already testified to that under oath. And those sources were all Trump's appointees who supported Trump.

He 100% knew that he did not win.

 

I am certain he has been told that he lost. I just think he still thinks he won anyway, that he can't conceive of having lost.

 

He knew of the recounts and investigations. His response wasn't that he was sure he won, it was for the DOJ to ahead and just say there was corruption then to let him and Republican congressmen handle it.

It's pretty cut and dry that he knew he lost.

 

Or that he can't conceive of having lost fairly. I don't think he believes he won, so much as he believes that the Democrats didn't win fairly and therefore the results should be thrown out.

 

Kinzinger says more witnesses have come forward after Hutchinson testimony

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...have-come-forward-after-hutchinson-testimony/

excerpt:

“This happens every day,” Kinzinger told CNN “State of the Union” co-anchor Dana Bash. “Every day we get new people that come forward and say, ‘Hey, I didn’t think maybe this piece of the story that I knew was important.'”

. . . Kinzinger on Sunday declined to say what corroborating evidence the committee has to back up her claims.
​

more at the link

 

So if he’s indicted you really think his attorney will make a case to the jury that this is a case of insanity??… while he’s running for president??

I’m not saying his attorney wouldn’t try to make the case that there were opposing “legal views” inside the White House but in the end the jury is going to be told by the prosecution that this isn’t the case actually because in every case the real lawyers who aren’t now disbarred like Sydney Powell and Rudy Guiliani were all providing clear evidence and legal proof that he lost. He had the case made to him as clear as he could have it and the only explanation for not grasping clear and factual evidence shown him would be some type of insanity plea…. Which would really be something.

Now…. Does Merrick Garland have the guts to bring charges and risk that Trump gets a hung jury or a mistrial or that he is found not guilty based on a case made to the jury that article 2 actually does make the president “above the law”???… my guess is no he doesn’t and on the ladder point I think a big reason why Nixon wasn’t charged, W wasn’t investigated, and Trump will likely walk is due to folks like Garland who know the law and the constitution enough to know that it would be terrifying and detrimental if we actually did get a bad answer to that question.

Kind of like how detrimental it could be to our country if we get a bad answer to the question of whether or not states actually do have the power to just overturn presidential elections they don’t like the outcome of without reasoning by sending electors of their party instead of those reflective of the actual winners party.

 

I'd guess that he thinks "winning" is not derived from a simple tabulation of votes, but comes after you've used every tool in your arsenal to determine which votes are counted and how. There is some place for that when there is genuine confusion of the will of the people (like the 2000 election). But he was never concerned with the will of the people.

 

That alone makes him unfit to be a President if he is that delusional - and should be a red flag for his fans.

DD

 

**** TRUMP !

Nothing more needs to be said. No one with honor or integrity is supporting him. It is impossible to support that crook and conman if you have honor or integrity.


DD

 

Pat Cipollone has reached a deal to give transcribed interview to January 6 committee - CNNPolitics

 

I'm not sure what he'll say now.
He said this back in Jan 2020...

Pat Cipollone called the charges against President Donald Trump "fraudulent" and suggested that Democratic members of the House planned to "steal" two elections.

"They're not here to steal one election, they're here to steal two elections. It's buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment," Cipollone said.

https://www.newsweek.com/white-hous...eachment-accuses-democrats-attempting-1483322

 

Did he agree to not assert the 5th?

 

Do pleas deals offer protection from civil suits?

Does delusion/insanity override intent?

Tough question to ask for an ex president and wannabe 2024 candidate...

 

I will be curious to see what he says, I hope he is honest and forthright and then let the chips fall where they may.

 

Telling a judge that you took advice from Giuliani is a good way to plead insanity.

 

We were all waiting for that insanity defense. It's finally here lol. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Trump has said he will never concede (before the election). It's premeditated.

It's one of those weird things in life. Some people twist themselves into some weird logic to guess what he's doing when he told all of us what he would do and then he does it. I'm inclined to believe some of these people are just being dishonest to themselves.

 

This is like telling a kleptomaniac that it's wrong to steal things and downplaying subsequent theft because they can't help themselves.