The complete story of the illegal coup plot by Donald Trump

What crime would that be? The Mueller investigation was run by Republicans, and was perfectly legal, and sound. The FBI is run by Republicans, as well, an FISA fiasco was determined to be reckless, but the FBI was determined not to be biased and the investigations were sufficiently predicted (See IG Horowitz's report).

 

Typo. Do not conflate deliberately poorly constructed sentences via horrific syntax with a typo, and if you do, you are being disingenuous.

"May OR may not".

ANYONE can make a typo. (Also, anyone can misspell a word or two) Only those with weak English skills create sentences with horrific syntax. If you do it only once, you get a pass. Don't do it again or don't do it much.

What, you didn't see the typo? Are you that daft?

Please say it isn't so.

 

The evidence of Trump's eager acceptance of election help from Putin, the extent of Russia's interference, Trump's obstruction of Mueller's investigation, the coordination between Stone and Wikileaks on the document dump right after the Access Hollywood video came out, revelations about Manafort giving proprietary data from the campaign to Kilimnik that ended up in Moscow, the illegal meeting between Donnie J and Russian operatives that Mueller decided not to pursue................all of it compiled under the supervision of Repubs. And yet Trump's defenders still put the blame on Dems. It's amazing.

 

Right. I might quote you in the future, if need be, if you don't mind

PDS

 

1. As far as I can tell (let me know if I'm wrong) from reading thru a good portion of the posts on this topic, no one ever asserted it was illegal for Trump to have Eastman's theory adjudicated in a court of law before you did. You were the one who introduced the claim it was legal on your own. The claim was that the failed coup was illegal. Making your central point, on which everything you have written is based, a tuna sandwich.
2. Even if Trump believed there was merit to Eastman's theory (which there wasn't) acting on that belief in various ways, among them to obstruct an official act of Congress (according to Judge Carter), even if adjudication of Eastman's memo was pending, is still illegal. Making your central point a tuna sandwich.
3. For his part, Eastman acknowledged his theory had no merit and therefore advised that it not be adjudicated. Meaning Trump acted despite not having any expectation at all of a favorable court ruling on the Eastman memo. Making your central point a tuna sandwich.
4. "Trump trying to assert legal machinations that clearly would have went to the USSC." How would the Eastman memo have ended up in front of the SC when no one tried to assert the theory in any court because it was so abjectly idiotic? Making your central point a tuna sandwich.
5. Your central point a tuna sandwich in that it disputes an assertion that was not made. Or I could be wrong.

 

Yes you are wrong. Read the title of the thread.

If you want to claim that the OP is referring to the riot, that same OP clearly stated in another thread that he does not believe that Trump intended on them breaching the capitol and that its occurrence ruined his plans. His position, as stated by him, is that Trump solely wanted to make some noise with the gathering. On top of that, you jumped into a conversation between he and I, and at no point did he ever claim that my characterization of his words was incorrect. If he did not assert that I misstated his words, what makes you think that you can swoop in and claim that I misstated his position? Undoubtedly, failed coup that he references meant the Eastman plan,and that was precisely how he argued this subject with me. At no point did he attempt to make it about the riot.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Are you claiming the Eastman plans very existence is illegal? Are you saying if they enacted the plan that the subsequent actions would have been illegal? Are you saying if that had acted upon it, and that it was not yet adjudicated in a court, that it is just illegal? Are you referring to the riot? ( If so that has nothing to do with what was being discussed because this is specially and solely about "the plan")

If you want to clarify your meaning I will be happy to respond, but I cannot respond when I do not understand what you are trying to convey.

You are fond of this "tuna sandwich" comment. Unfortuantely it is based upon as assertion that you made that is wrong (see number one)

Again with the incorrect "tuna sandwich" reference? LOL...Yeesh.

At any rate, when the OP title asserts an illegal plot ( the Eastman plan as detailed by the OP), clearly that is not claiming that the existence of some words on a page are illegal. That is claiming that if enacted the actions laid out in the plan would be determined to be illegal. What about this confuses you? Calling it "illegal" is what presupposes a judicial verdict. I did not make that pre-supposition. I merely responded to it.

Once again, yes, you are wrong. I cannot help but notice that this is essentially the same claim in point number 1. I am not sure why you felt the need to repeat it. Were you just wanting to once again make your incorrect "tuna sandwich" claim?

Let me let you in on a little secret.....The "tuna sandwich" thing was never cool/clever/funny etc., even IF your assertion in number 1 was correct. Since that assertion was wrong, in combination with your persistent use of the term, it really is rendered as sort of desperate, and definitely just plain silly.

 

Rest assured I read the title of the thread. It is that thread and your comments in response to it that I am referring to. Not another thread. Your attempt to bring what was written in another thread in to the equation is as disingenuous as it gets.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. It's simple. Even if we assume Trump believed Eastman's theory had merit, conspiring to obstruct an official act of Congress was still illegal. He doesn't get a pass for falsely believing the ECA was unconstitutional.

If he did not assert that I misstated his words, what makes you think that you can swoop in and claim that I misstated his position? Because you did.

Once again, yes, you are wrong. Actually, I'm not. If you are able to show a poster in this thread making the case that it would have been illegal for Trump to adjudicate Eastman's theory before you asserted it would not have been, you'd have a point. As it is, you have a tuna sandwich in that you disputed an assertion that was not made. Probably because you know.........

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.

Peace out.

 

It is not disingenuous in any way. It was merely stated in order to keep YOU from disingenuously pretending like the OP meant the riot. He did not, and his words in another thread prove that. Being that in our long conversation he NEVER once tried to correct my characterization of his position is further proof.

Judging from your reply above, it is obvious that my pre-emptive stroke was well placed.

Obsruct it how? Are you referring to the riot? That is an entirely different subject. If you mean obstruct it by instituting the Eastman plan and having a vote of the states, the legality of that would have to be determined by the courts, and even if rendered illegal, that does NOT make the assertion of that machination a crime.

What about this do you find so difficult to grasp?

You make this assertion based on what specifically?

"Likely attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on January6" is not only an opinion and presented as such, but it refers specifically to the riot. How do we know that it is referring to the riot and NOT the Eastman plan?......Probably because, you know....The Eastman plan was never enacted.

Which brings us full circle back to the singular point that I have made in this thread...

Just because the proposed actions would likely be determined to be illegal, that does not make the attempt itself an illegal act, and it most certainly does not make it a coup. A coup would require that it be done outside of the legal system and nothing you have presented shows that this was somehow going to subvert the USSC.

The left hides behind the language of calling the plan illegal to bogusly imply that means that a crime is committed if that plan is attempted ( as you have done with the above statement) . It does not. The above statement about its illegality does NOT mean that a crime was committed. It merely supposes that it would be rejected by the Supreme Court thus it could be called unconstitutional, and illegal as an executive directive, but NOT illegal as in a crime was committed in making the attempt.

Its cute how you call it "installed", but that hyperbolic mischaracterization aside, asserting a legal machination that was ultimately accepted by the USSC as constitutional ( which is what would be required for Trump to have remained President) would NOT be an example of a President being installed. It would be an example of a President working within our proscribed legal system in order to rightfully remain president.

Dont take the above to mean I am saying that he would have been successful in that attempt because that is NOT my belief. I am saying it because that simply would not constitute "being installed". My personal belief was that they contemplated it for the purpose of buying time and to force the USSC to involve itself in the election, whereas up until that point they had refused to get involved in any way. I don't believe they thought for one second that the vote of the states would have ultimately prevailed to select the President.

Ummmm....Is this supposed to be like a "mic drop"? You should probably save those for when you have made a great point, or at LEAST a valid one.

 

I'm trying to parse your sentence. I wouldn't be illegal to have the EM adjudicated in a court of law, that makes no sense. It might be rendered illegal after it was brought as evidence in a court, which is what I think you meant.

On the whole, I would agree with that.

That was my point.

Okay, so tuna sandwich is to dispute an assertion that is not made. But isn't that a strawman of sorts?

My assertion, that the coup was, overall, illegal, does not depend on anyone actually making that assertion, though Melber, and others, have made that assertion, so it's not clear to me why you are saying this.

Now then, I don't actually believe Eastmen came right out and claimed he didn't advise Trump to follow the plan. Someone asked him that if it reached the SCOTUS, how would they vote on it? I think he finally acknowledged they would shoot it down. But I don't know if that was before, or after he advised Trump.

I was arguing what Ari Melber pointed out on TV. Aspects of the 'plan' were illegal, which included aspects of the Eastman plan, were also illegal.

The plan itself, was broader than the Eastman Memo, and aspects of the plan were legal, AND illegal, including aspects of the memo, itself. If I recall correctly, there were 8 prongs to the plan, most of which were attempted, though all ultimately failed.

It has not been adjudicated in any court, this is all speculation, 'opinions' to which we, in the court of public opinion, are entitled, but the whole point is, to base it on some kind of logic, layman's knowledge of law ( real lawyers are invited to chime in) etc.

Though I will note that Ari Melber is a lawyer, and he's putting his entire argument as a forward to the 1/6 committee's report, so there is some gravitas to his position.

 

Great imagination by this poster, life is so much harder today than under President Trump, and why, because current corrupt politicians do not care about the taxpaying citizens of this country.

It’s not only democrats, it’s most of the politicians in this country. You sir are helping all these corrupt politicians further their agenda by defending them.

I assume you’ve heard the phrase United We Stand, Divided We Fall, well that’s what these politicians are counting on and you are helping them.

Todays politicians are not even trying to hide their agenda: they are even importing voters (illegals) while us taxpayers foot the bill for them.

It’s happening in plain sight and the taxpayers that object are called conspiracy theorists.

As taxpaying citizens we need to unite and stand up to these political bullies and say NO MORE!!
But I know that won’t happen even in the greatest country on earth.

The majority of the people just accept what the corrupt politicians say, and that is so dangerous for our country.

 

I wrote..."As far as I can tell (let me know if I'm wrong) from reading thru a good portion of the posts on this topic, no one ever asserted it was illegal for Trump to have Eastman's theory adjudicated in a court of law before you did.".........because FAW's tuna sandwich is premised on his assertion that you (or someone) claimed it would have been illegal for Trump to have sought adjudication of Eastman's theory in court. I was not able to find any such assertion on the matter until he brought it up. Most likely as a way to deflect from Trump's criminal behavior as cited by Judge Carter.