Trump's Troubles

Some have already made up their minds without even reading the indictment. IOW the cult lives.Pathetic.

 

I'm not much for calling him the 'orange god' but essentially you are right. Trump made it clear that if he lost he would blame it on fraud. He lost, blamed it on fraud and millions of Americans immediately believed him ... simply because he said it.
The adoration and loyalty to him - the attempt to overturn our democracy for him - ... are just baffling,

 

Wash Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/02/trump-lies-2020-election-fraud-indictment/

 

When you listen to Trump talk and then listen to his supporters interviewed, the connection is obvious.

 

They still believe him in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And in the face of his actions to subvert the election. They would happily have the Vice President exercise unilateral discretion to reject the opposing party’s electors in order to assure that Trump and the GOP stay in power— turning elections into shams. That is clear from the GOP polling. They can’t even turn toward a different candidate who stands for the same things Trump does in the face of this overwhelming evidence.

 

Out of curiosity, what media sources are trustworthy?

 

So did election officials after the states recounted and audited. He knew his claims were BS and went ahead with them anyway as did the majority of the House caucus and 8 US Senators. Including Ted Cruz who followed the plan by announcing that the electors should be sent back to the states and Rick Scott. Who also knew the claims weee bogus. The entire Pence scam was necessary because the GOP did not control the House. I have little doubt that a GOP majority would have rejected the Biden electors. That is who the GOP is— like it or not. Pence, Hutchinson, Hurd and Christie are right that Trump is unfit for office. And Pence’s testimony should convict Trump. “You are too honest.” And it links Trump directly to the scam. So, next time people talk about weaponiztion of the DOJ, consider the evidence offered by the former Vice President of the United States.

 

Was not sure that I saw this up thread from earlier in the week. Seems counter intuitive.. .doesnt he raise a lot of money?

After Paying Lawyers, Trump’s PAC Is Nearly Broke

Former President Donald J. Trump’s political action committee, which began last year with $105 million, now has less than $4 million left in its account after paying tens of millions of dollars in legal fees for Mr. Trump and his associates.

The dwindling cash reserves in Mr. Trump’s PAC, called Save America, have fallen to such levels that the group has made the highly unusual request of a $60 million refund of a donation it had previously sent to a pro-Trump super PAC. This money had been intended for television commercials to help Mr. Trump’s candidacy, but as he is the dominant front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2024, his most immediate problems appear to be legal, not political.

 

Somewhat on this topic: How long until Trump faces charges under the wire fraud involved?

 

You give “them” the benefit of the doubt that they listened to all of the actual hard evidence (such as written documents exchanged between the Trump Team). “They” don’t, instead engaging in the convenience of willful ignorance of “hear no evil, see no evil speak no evil”. Any evidence that falls against their core faith in Trump MUST be fake; he is incapable of sin.

 

Nooe. Didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt. They make a conscious choice. The evidence won’t matter to them.

 

They won't consider hard evidence. They are never going to listen to CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post or the NYT. If Fox "News" or one of Trump's former henchman contradicts anything Trump says, they are lying, being forced, secret members of the Deep State or RINOs. The dynamics of this mess and the number of people caught up in it are pretty amazing. It's like mass hysteria on a national scale.

 

That's an interesting point. Also, one thing Bill Barr raised last night was the fact that Steve Bannon said before the election that Trump was going to claim the election was stolen if it didn't go his way. Was that based upon discussions with Trump, and if so, when? We will see how the evidence plays out, but we all heard Trump say on several occasions before the election that the only way he was going to lose is if they stole it from him. That's at least consistent with the position that Trump was going to claim widespread fraud before the evidence of it could have existed.

Another interesting issue: Smith alleges that Trump exploited the violence on January 6th, but didn't charge incitement of the riot. Ben Shapiro made an issue of that. I wonder if we were to learn that even if Trump didn't expressly incite the violence but was aware of a plan to breach the Capitol, if that might change any minds?

I suspect in the coming months, we might be hearing more about the "Brooks Brothers riot," which Roger Stone helped orchestrate after the 2000 election to shut down the counting of votes in Miami Dade. For those who don't remember it:

Brooks Brothers riot - Wikipedia

The Brooks Brothers riot was a demonstration led by Republican staffers at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 22, 2000, during a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election, with the goal of shutting down the recount. After demonstrations and acts of violence, local officials shut down the recount early. This had the effect of ensuring that the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code could not be met, guaranteeing that George W. Bush would win the 2000 election.

The name referenced the protesters' corporate attire; described by Paul Gigot in an editorial for The Wall Street Journal as "50-year-old white lawyers with cell phones and Hermès ties", differentiating them from local citizens concerned about vote counting.[1] Many of the demonstrators were Republican staffers.[2] Both Roger Stone and Brad Blakeman take credit for managing the riot from a command post, although their accounts contradict each other.[2] Republican New York Representative John E. Sweeney gave the signal that started the riot,[3] telling an aide to "shut it down".[4][5]

 

Trump made the same claims in 2016. When Cruz won the Iowa caucus, Trump claimed he stole it. Before the general election, he claimed that Clinton was trying to steal it. When he won and Clinton conceded, he claimed he would have won the popular vote except for all the fraud. He claimed that he would have won New Hampshire but it was stolen through fraud.

It was perfectly obvious he was going to claim fraud if he lost 2020. The surprising and incredibly disappointing thing is how many people believed him.

 

Yeah, and if Trump wins in 2024, the criminal charges may be a moot point. If he loses, however, I suppose the charges might make Trump or those around him think twice before hatching another plan.

 

If a Republican wins 2024, it is all a mute point.

 

This Tucker Carlson?:

Jan. 6 Rioter Who Tucker Carlson Said Was An ‘Agent’ Charged In Capitol Attack

 

Trump would also have to testify to raise an advice of counsel defense, the latest thing his "dream team" is throwing against the wall. That defense requires, in part, that Trump provided counsel with all relevant facts. That's going nowhere in a hurry.

 

Thank god there will be a mugshot…

Top Cop Promises Trump Mugshot If He’s Arrested In Election Crimes Probe