The complete story of the illegal coup plot by Donald Trump

No, they don’t. That’s the issue.

 

New address for the video

 

It's not called collusion, it's called conspiracy, and conspiracy is a crime if the actors in this conspiracy physically take action in the furtherance of the conspiracy. it doesn't have to be complete or successful just to take physical action in the furtherance of the plan which was done.

 

Again, you have no idea what was recovered. You only know what the FBI said was recovered.

 

There are many facets to Donald Trump all of which add up to a major threat to United States national security. Just the documents fiasco alone is enough. His reckless disregard for the safety of our nation is more than evident with his gross mishandling of national defense information documents for which others have been imprisoned for far less, namely Reality Winner-- One mishandled document got her a 5 year sentence

 

So you are implying that with the former president of the United States --a target of epic proportions , the FBI would be so foolish as to lie about what was recovered in an FBI search, something which could easily be substantiated? Surely, you can't be serious.

 

Espionage, section 793, the gross mishandling of national defense information documents, does not depend on any classification regime; it depends only on DNI damage assessments.

Additionally, the documents do not show that they were declassified, but that fact is a moot point, anyway

 

Please substantiate your conclusion

 

I did I listed 2 films which document everything I said plus I posted a link. What republicans did requires a lot of space which cannot be contained within the character limitation of this forum, Which is why there are no less than 2 films over an hour each which contain this information but of course you don't want to know which is why you won't watch the films or click on the link

 

Please substantiate your claim

 

Incompetence is irrelevant. the attempt is what makes it a crime.

 

one word…. (Or Two Biden words).
Dossier.

 

Just as democrats are sick of Republican's ignorance on the evidence that is in front of them which they refuse to look at

 

Has there been any indictment? Nope. This is supposed to be a slam dunk and no indictment.

 

Inadequate rebuttal; no substantive reply offered.

 

No, because the precise details and facts surrounding Hillary and the emails are neither the same nor of a comparable magnitude to that of Trump's documents fiasco, the sameness of which your point utterly depends. .

If you want to debate that point, let me know, and I will oblige.

 

The fact that there has been no indictment as of yet does not substantiate your conclusion. Your conclusion is premised on an assumption of timeliness, indicating a lack of knowledge of the complexity of prosecuting a former President of the United States, which requires a thoroughness above and beyond the normal citizen. yes, justice is supposed to be blind, but there is some truth to the old adage, 'when you aim your arrow at the king, you'd better not miss', it's the 'better not miss' part, which takes most likely more time than usual, in light of the fact that a prosecution of the former president has never been done in history, and the spotlight on the world would be upon the prosecutors, raising the stakes to it's supreme level.

Patience, my friend, patience.

 

I understand that you're are simply overwhelmed by the poetic logic and aesthetic beauty of my posts and so flee you the arena where ideas are soundly debated. I bid you good day and congratulate you on your valiant effort.

 

If the classified material drama is a slam dunk, the wheels of justice should be rolling. They aren't, because they don't have ****.

 

Clinton broke the law. Period.

Your double standard and faux outrage is noted.

 

The thing is that instead of large bills Trump took out of bank valuable information. Like right now I share with you my words of wisdom so you need to declare it to the IRS and pay taxes on it.

 

And no Jews died in

Your words aren't worth diddley

 

WTF is that supposed to mean?...lol

 

Let me first start by saying thank you for taking the time to summarize the video. I can imagine that took a fair amount of effort.

When coming across the line "The plan, or rather, the 'scheme', from the beginning, based on advice given to Trump by Eastman, et al, laid out in the Eastman Memo, and acted upon as we have seen", that sure sounds like legalistic jargon that is desperately trying to attach Trump to every single letter of that plan while you dont really have him legally attached to every letter of that plan as evidenced by your line "and acted upon as we have seen", but you are trying to assert as much regardless. The notion that a President is somehow culpable for every bit of advice given to them by an advisor because they acted on some of that advice is nonsensical. That is not a real principle. Somewhere along the way someone slipped that verbiage in there and you have internalized it and taken it as gospel when that is simply not reality.

With all of that being said, it does not matter. For purposes of this argument we can pretend like every bit of that is precisely his plan, because it does not impact my point in the slightest. My point is that " 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." There is nothing illegal about trying to assert legal privileges and actions that are subsequently deemed illegal.

Everything listed above is subject to review by the USSC. If at any point the USSC deemed any action unconstitutional, then it would be stopped. This is not different than any other presidential actions, directives etc, that are subject to USSC review on a regular basis. What you are asserting are things that would likely be deemed illegal thus shot down by the USSC. This does not mean that making the assertion is illegal, rather it only means that the attempted action has been deemed not legal.

There is no attempt whatsoever listed above that is trying to subvert the legal system. Every single action is accountable to the legal system. There is absolutely not one thing illegal about a President asserting an action that is subsequently shot down by the courts.

What about this do you find so difficult to understand?

Yes, I read above, and your assertion IS nothing more than a play on words. Even if we assume that every part of the plan laid out above is 100% true, calling that an illegal coup is nothing more than a play on words. 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,

I realize that you have been spoon-fed this propagandized claptrap for the better part of 2 years now, but at some point, one would think that you might inject just a modicum of logic into the equation. There is not one thing illegal about working within the legal framework to attempt to exercise every potential avenue to protest what Trump saw as a potential stolen election.

What about this do you find so difficult to understand?

 

Regarding the highlighted, above, allow me to provide you with evidence that Trump was, 'attached' as you put it, to the plan, in every way.

Note that I said 'Eastman, et al', where et al, included Peter Navarro. We know Trump conspired with Eastman, Navarro and Bannon, because of Ari Melber's extensive interview with Navarro on this very point, which they gave the 'scheme' a nickname, called the 'Greenbay Sweep'.



Where Eastman comes into the picture is that he expanded on the plan to include contingency measures, which I've already outlined in a previous comment.

I am not so certain 'every single action is accountable to the legal system'. First, as I understand it, it violates the laws in most states for the President to call up State Secretary's of State to persuade with with false allegations of election fraud (no valid evidence was ever confirmed in any of the 60 plus lawsuits filed and failed thus far) in order to get them to decertify their elections and replace them with Trump's fake electors.

Prior to the Eastman Memo, the Navarro/Bannon 'Green Bay Sweep, we have a Senate Judiciary Committe's interim report,

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

which details many actions of the plan, though the plan, as a 'plan' with a nickname, the Greenbay Sweep, was unknown to the Senate Judiciary Committee at the juncture when the report was written, but it does back up some of the details of the overall plan, which details how Trump planned to Replace the acting AG with Jeffrey Clark, an attorney who was willing to do Trump's bidding, which was to execute the part of the plan in the Eastman memo having to do with pressuring State Secretary's of State and various election officials to pressure them to decertify and set aside their electors and replace with the false electors (they were fake because no governor signed the forged documents presented to them to grant them 'official alternative elector' status, which were to replace Biden electors if Trump's lawsuits were successful in the pertinent states, that the fake elector scheme continued way past the fruition of all the lawsuits, at that juncture, in particular, irrespective of the fact that they weren't legitimized by Governor signatures on the establishing documents, rendered them illegal). .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos
The Eastman memos, also known as the "coup memo",[6][7] are documents by John Eastman, an American law professor retained by then-President Donald Trump advancing the fringe legal theory that the U.S. Vice President has unilateral authority to reject certified State electors which would have the effect of nullifying an election in order to produce an outcome desired by the Vice President, such as a result in the Vice President's own party's favor.

It wasn't a 'protest' insofar as the overall plan. 1/6 attack was a 'fumble' on the overall plan, it might have succeeded but for that attack.

What is ethical about a President pushing lies that his opponents stole the election, and trying to get Secretary's of State to decertify elections in their states to replace Biden's legitimately won electors with Trump's illegitmate and fake electors?

Explain this to me?

I, as well as the committee believe there is sufficient grounds for a criminal referral on Trump's election subversion attempt, and it definitely was a subversion attempt, which he attempted in all the swing states, the plan was to get Pence to remand the contested votes, with the cooperation of numerous senators, back to the states whereupon the schemers were hoping they couldn't resolve the issues created by the remand such that it would exceed the deadline, whereupon where no party has 270 required electors, the vote goes to the house where Republicans have a two state majority.

It's not illegal for a contested election, if it happens organically, but if it is deliberately inflicted, the contention is that then it becomes an illegal act, given the foreknowledge of a two state advantage, a veritable 'coup'. Okay, I don't know that it is illegal or not, but it most certainly should be, given the facts. here we have a president, who lost the election, attempting to subvert the will of the people to retain power, which is, in my view, the very definition of a coup.

'coup' is a term of art, just know that the contention is that the deliberate act of planning a scheme so as to contest the election via a conspiracy of The president, several of his staff, and that of certain Senators, etc, is conspiracy to subvert an election, and, a such, well, is that illegal? We shall see.

Here's the deal, the overall 'scheme', in it's simplest form, may be technically legal, but there were component parts that are presumably illegal, such as the fake electors, the pressuring of state officials to decertify violating state laws, and the last leg of the scheme where Trump pressured Pence to illegally remand the contested votes back to the states, the ultimate result of which, according to the plan, was to throw the vote to the house, where Republicans had a two state majority, wherupon President Trump would be reelected.

And, if that isn't deemed illegal, or illegal enough for Jack Smith to recommend indictment, the documents fiasco certainly was illegal.