The complete story of the illegal coup plot by Donald Trump

They why are so many threads from die hard DEMOCRAT supporters being posted daily on this site?

 

What??

 

O wow, man I feel sorry for you.

 

cause Trump is a threat to this nation and the world, and he is a republican candidate for 2024, the right can't quit him it seems

 

I realize that you have all kinds of leftist sources alleging all manner of crimes (color me shocked). What you and I have been discussing however, is specifically the as you call it "scheme to overthrow the government".

Every part of the plan that you laid out was always still under the scrutiny of the courts, and in no way was it trying to subvert the legal system. That is NOT a coup. It is legal machinations, and nothing more. You have been locked in your echo chamber for so long that you have completely lost the forest for the trees. It is perfectly legal to try to avail oneself of every potential loophole that exists. If any of those attempts are thwarted by being declared illegal, that in NO WAY renders the attempt as being illegal.

Nothing about discussing or even asserting this "scheme" as you call it is illegal. Do you understand this? You keep avoiding that reality, while still alleging it when speaking with others.

 

This feels a lot like that movie Groundhog Day. If you keep putting forth the same argument with slightly different wording, I will keep giving the same response...

Every part of the plan that you laid out was always still under the scrutiny of the courts, and in no way was it trying to subvert the legal system. That is NOT a coup. It is legal machinations, and nothing more. You have been locked in your echo chamber for so long that you have completely lost the forest for the trees. It is perfectly legal to try to avail oneself of every potential loophole that exists. If any of those attempts are thwarted by being declared illegal, that in NO WAY renders the attempt as being illegal.

Nothing about discussing or even asserting this "scheme" as you call it is illegal. Do you understand this? You keep avoiding that reality, while still alleging it when speaking with others.

Last edited: A moment ago

 

Could you be less obtuse as to what that word salad means?

 

You have jumped into the tail end of a very long conversation. What is it specifically that has you confused?

 

What does this.............Every part of the plan that you laid out was always still under the scrutiny of the courts, and in no way was it trying to subvert the legal system..........mean? Given that Trump had exhausted the legal avenues in trying to overturn the election results.

 

I will repost where this conversation began and perhaps that will help you to understand...

What you are calling an illegal coup, is essentially Trump trying to assert legal machinations that clearly would have went to the USSC, and in all likelihood would have been determined to be not applicable. I believe he was using it not because he thought that it would work, but rather because he was trying to buy more time and get legal weight behind investigating the election, but in truth, whether he thought it would work or simply wanted to buy more time is irrelevant.

In one sense you can call this illegal, but not illegal in that wrongly attempting the assertion is illegal, but rather that the assertion would have been shot down once it faced legal scrutiny and declared illegal by virtue of that ruling. This is illegal in the same way that a wrongful assertion of executive privilege is illegal, which means that the assertion would be shot down, not as in the act of asserting executive privilege is illegal in and of itself. It is illegal in the sense that if Bidens Student Loan Forgiveness is determined to be unconstitutional, that it would be called illegal. This does NOT mean that trying to get it through was an illegal act.

This is nothing more than a play on words that the left is presenting to its adherents and you all are eating it up like candy. At first, I figured that you were in on the ruse and just using the lingo to be smarmy, but as time has progressed it has become obvious that you all have been truly fooled, hook, line, and sinker.

 

As Stewart Rhodes found out, there was nothing legal about obstructing congressional or federal administrative proceedings.

 

Now you are using the same tactic as the OP, which is answering by changing the subject. I am talking specifically about "the scheme" as many on the left call it. There is not one thing illegal about asserting a legal maneuver that later is determined unconstitutional or illegal. You could say the same thing when Gore tried to flip a couple electors to flip the election to him....undoubtedly if he had been successful that would have been declared unconstitutional/illegal, but him making the attempt is NOT illegal. Or lets say that Bidens student loan forgiveness is declared illegal, that does NOT make his attempt a criminal act even IF I try my best to paint it as an illegal vote-buying scheme. Expressions such as "subvert the election" or "illegal vote buying scheme" from a legal standpoint do not mean a thing. They are just a meaningless connotation used by partisans that are designed to make the other side sound devious.

Do you understand this principle that it is not illegal for a President to assert a legal privilege that is determined to be illegal?

 

Complete and honest rebuttal.

 

You actually gave a conservative estimate. Trump is not only the biggest threat to the Left's agenda but the biggest threat to our nation overall.

This nation would have lost everything it had gained over the past 246 years (since the Constitution was written). Democracy would have disappeared and an autocratic tyrannical government would have taken over.

 

You were given what you were asked for you just don't like it, hence dodge.

 

‘Coup Memo’ Author Admitted in Front of Trump That Their Scheme Was Illegal: Jan. 6 Hearing
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...n-donald-trump-illegal-jan-6-hearing-1369118/

What you're saying is tantamount to Trump robbing a bank because he didn't know it was illegal.

Got anything else?

 

The above is saying "illegal" as in will get shot down in court. Not illegal as in if you assert that maneuver and it is determined to be illegal, then you are a criminal. Presidents have their actions overturned by the USSC and declared illegal with a fair amount of regularity. This in no way makes them criminals. This is precisely how judicial oversight is supposed to work,

That is like saying that they knew Bidens loan forgiveness was illegal. That does NOT mean that therefore making the directive was an illegal act, even IF Nancy Pelosi famously already declared it illegal prior to him implementing it.

Do you SERIOUSLY not understand this distinction? How can you possibly believe that the above refutes what I have said on the matter?

...and NO, it is NOT tantamount to Trump robbing a bank because he didn't know it was illegal. That is not analogous in any form or fashion. Robbing a bank is a CRME. Asserting a legal privilege that is determined to be unconstitutional is NOT a crime. What about this do you find so confusing?

 

Illegal as in illegal. That is, Eastman admitting he knew the scheme was illegal and trying it anyway.

“Coup memo” author John Eastman knew that he and former President Trump’s scheme to get Mike Pence to block the certification of the 2020 election was illegal, and said so in front of Trump, according to testimony played during the Jan. 6 committee’s hearing on Thursday.
“Did John Eastman ever admit in front of the president that his proposal would violate the Electoral Count Act?” investigators asked Greg Jacob, Pence’s former legal counsel.

“I believe he did on the fourth,” Jacob replied. “That was Jan. 4, two days before the attack on Congress,” Cheney said of when exactly Trump knew it would be illegal for Pence to block the certification of the Electoral College.

Eastman was so worried about the illegality of the scheme that he, like multiple members of Congress, sought a preemptive pardon from Trump. “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works,” he wrote in an email to Rudy Giuliani.

As opposed to Biden proposing something that was legal in the opinion of his legal team. Do you SERIOUSLY not understand this distinction?

 

What about this do you find so confusing?

Do you honestly think that because Nancy Pelosi said that it is not legal for the president to grant loan forgiveness outside of Congress, and then if in the very likely event the USSC declares it illegal, that therefore Biden is guilty of a crime because he was already told it was illegal? That doesnt make any sense. Nancy Pelosi's declaration is wholly irrelevant, as is the statement by Eastman. It is not relevant in any way, but someone has bogusly given you the impression that it is.

There is not one thing about a President asserting a legal privilege that is subsequently determined by the USSC to be illegal, that makes the assertion an illegal act.

You are smart enough to grasp this, you just refuse because it contradicts the unchallenged nonsense you have been fed from the Rachel Maddows of the world for a couple of years now. This is precisely why this so called "scheme" will never go to court, because when it is all said and done, asserting a legal privilege that is determined to be illegal does not constitute a crime in any form or fashion. The powers that bein the Democratic Party know this, they are simply praying upon the understandable ignorance of their followers.

 

There was even concern that the White House lawyers, tasked with guiding the president to abide by the law, would quit in protest. The committee presented evidence showing how Fox News host Sean Hannity texted Meadows on the day before the eventual attack on the Capitol building by a mob of Trump loyalists that he was “very worried about the next 48 hours,” warning that “Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jan-6...d-trumps-pressure-campaign-against-mike-pence

Three ex-DOJ officials — former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue and former assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel — said they threatened to resign over the scheme and said hundreds of others would do the same.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/jan...oj-and-plan-to-replace-attorney-general-.html

 

The Left's agenda is going to destroy the country and put an end to democracy.

 

A federal judge presiding over a civil suit involving the House committee investigating the riot at the U.S. Capitol found Monday that then-President Donald Trump "likely attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress" on Jan. 6, 2021, which would be a crime.

"The illegality of the plan was obvious," U.S. District Judge David Carter wrote of Trump and lawyer John Eastman's plan to have then-Vice President Mike Pence determine the results of the 2020 election.

"Every American — and certainly the president of the United States — knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this 'BOLD,' President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle. Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021," Carter wrote in U.S. District Court for Central California, ordering emails that Eastman wrote furthering the plan to be turned over to the Jan. 6 committee.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...t-tried-illegally-disrupt-electoral-rcna21857

It wasn't just obvious to Carter. It was obvious to Eastman and Trump as well since Eastman told Trump the scheme was illegal. Therefore, your assertion that...There is not one thing about a President asserting a legal privilege.....is erroneous since Trump knew the privilege he was asserting was not legal.

 

My goodness you are being willfully ignorant. The plan can be illegal, meaning that it will be determined to be unconstitutional. That does NOT mean that asserting the legal maneuvering that is later determined to be illegal by the USSC constitutes a CRIME.

In this context, the word illegal can be correctly used while not implying the existence of a crime. It only implies that a particular legal assertion, after judicial review, has been determined to not be a legal maneuver. It does not matter how many links you paste that show the word illegal, that does NOT make the assertion a CRIME. Whether various people said it was illegal has not one iota of impact to legality or lack therein. You are justy spouting nonsense. Various opinions are irrelevant.

You also tried to say that this is tantamount to Trump robbing a bank because he didn't know it was illegal. That is NOT analogous in any form or fashion. Why?... Because Robbing a bank is a CRIME. Asserting a legal privilege that is determined to be unconstitutional/illegal is NOT a crime. What about this do you find so confusing?

 

That is pure BS. Then again, it is a known fact the Trump and the Republicans offer the best **** around.

 

What pdf is that? The only thing i referred to in my comment to which you are responding which is in PDF form is the Eastman Memo, and that was not written by the judiciary, it was written by Trump's coup-plotting co-conspirator Attorney John Eastman, and the PDF is known as the 'Eastman Memo'

So, what PDF are you referring to? (it's courtesy to link to any documents you mention in a comment or rebuttal)

What makes you think they are not impartial? Which judges are you referring to and which court opinions?

That makes no sense.

So you are not referring to the committee, you are referring to the judiciary? Which court rulings and opinions are you referring to? The 'judiciary' as you have expressed it, is vague. The judiciary is comprised of a vast system of courts most of which have not rendered a ruling or opinion on 1/6.. The very fact your comment is vague, sloppy, gives me the idea your reply lacks merit, on the whole.

AmericanNationalist, your critique utterly lacks merit. . Why? It's a rant, and rants which contain mostly weasel words (generalities which cannot be substantiated) lack merit, and as an argument, do not warrant a proper response. You might have done better if you were to cite a four or five examples which corroborate your sentiments, but you didn't, so either they do not exist, or you are lazy.

Unless you can do that, your comment is dismissed as a rant, and, as such, does not merit a proper response other than my comments above. Now, that's not to say other folks won't comment on your rant, but not I. I'm the kind of fellow that needs more substance, or at least a generality that appears to be on the right track, and I just don't see what you are looking at that leads you to your conclusions. So, in such a case, substantiation of some kind should have been offered, and you didn't offer it.

Could what you are saying be true in some cases? Sure. Even a random guess would be accurate, because in the annals of judicial history, there are bound to be a few cases that line up to your sentiment, or just about any reasonable sentiment -- but you have indicted the entire judiciary, and that, AmericanNationalist, renders your comment into the 'rant not worthy of a proper response' category, or at least, for me, it does.

Also, you have posed some 'solutions' based on your generalities.

No congress or senate worthy of the ascription is going to propose legislation creating new political or judicial bodies based on a rant.

So, do the hard work of substantiating your conclusions, or engage with someone else, because yours truly doesn't engage with rants, as a general principle. (Oh I might quip back in kind to those occasional snarkisms that occur, daily, on this forum, as playful jest, but nothing serious, mind you).

Be wary of the 'weasel words' phenomenon, a debate sin.






.