ADVERTISEMENT

Trying really, really hard not to get my hopes up . . .

torbee

HR King
Gold Member
I've long been in the camp believing there will never, ever be any serious repercussions for Trump or his loyal cronies as a result of their attempted coup.

But a tiny sliver of hope is beginning to creep in. But I still remain deeply cynical.

The Man Helping Drive the Investigation Into Trump’s Push to Keep Power​

Thomas Windom, a little-known federal prosecutor, is overseeing key elements of the Justice Department’s intensifying investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.




Thomas P. Windom, a little-known but aggressive federal prosecutor, is overseeing key elements of the investigation into the effort to overturn the 2020 election.

By Glenn Thrush, Alan Feuer and Michael S. Schmidt
June 28, 2022Updated 2:10 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON — As the Justice Department expands its criminal investigation into the efforts to keep President Donald J. Trump in office after his 2020 election loss, the critical job of pulling together some of its disparate strands has been given to an aggressive, if little-known, federal prosecutor named Thomas P. Windom.
Since late last year, when he was detailed to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, Mr. Windom, 44, has emerged as a key leader in one of the most complex, consequential and sensitive inquiries to have been taken on by the Justice Department in recent memory, and one that has kicked into higher gear over the past week with a raft of new subpoenas and other steps.
It is Mr. Windom, working under the close supervision of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s top aides, who is executing the department’s time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward, according to interviews with defense lawyers, department officials and the recipients of subpoenas.

He has been leading investigators who have been methodically seeking information, for example, about the roles played by some of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and John Eastman, with a mandate to go as high up the chain of command as the evidence warrants.

That element of the inquiry is focused in large part on the so-called fake electors scheme, in which allies of Mr. Trump assembled slates of purported electors pledged to Mr. Trump in swing states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.

In recent weeks, the focus has shifted from collecting emails and texts from would-be electors in Georgia, Arizona and Michigan to the lawyers who sought to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory, and pro-Trump political figures like the head of Arizona’s Republican Party, Kelli Ward.

Mr. Windom has also overseen grand jury appearances like the one on Friday by Ali Alexander, a prominent “Stop the Steal” organizer who testified for nearly three hours. And Mr. Windom, in conjunction with Matthew M. Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been pushing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack to turn over transcripts of its interviews with hundreds of witnesses in the case — spurred on by an increasingly impatient Lisa O. Monaco, Mr. Garland’s top deputy, according to people familiar with the matter.

The raid last week on the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who played a key role in Mr. Trump’s effort to pressure the department to pursue and back his baseless claims of widespread election fraud, was initiated separately by the department’s independent inspector general, since Mr. Clark had been an employee at the time of the actions under scrutiny. So was the apparently related seizure last week of a cellphone from Mr. Eastman, who has been linked by the House committee to Mr. Clark’s push to help Mr. Trump remain in office.

But Mr. Windom has been involved in almost all the department’s other key decisions regarding the wide-ranging inquiry into Mr. Trump’s multilayered effort to remain in office, officials said.

For all of this activity, Mr. Windom remains largely unknown even within the Justice Department, outside of two high-profile cases he successfully brought against white supremacists when he worked out of the department’s office in Washington’s Maryland suburbs.

Mr. Windom’s bosses appear to be intent on preserving his obscurity: The department’s top brass and its press team did not announce his shift to the case from a supervisory role in the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland late last year, and they still refuse to discuss his appointment, even in private.

That might not be a bad thing for Mr. Windom, the latest federal official assigned to investigate the former president and his inner circle, a hazardous job that turned many of his predecessors into targets of the right, forcing some to exit public service with deflated reputations and inflated legal bills.

“Don’t underestimate how every single aspect of your life will be picked over, looked at, investigated, examined — you, your family, everything,” said Peter Strzok, who was the lead agent on the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia until it was discovered he had sent text messages disparaging Mr. Trump.

“You think: I’m doing the right thing and that will protect you,” added Mr. Strzok, who is still bombarded with threats and online attacks more than three years after being fired. “I didn’t appreciate that there were going to be people out there whose sole goal is to totally destroy you.”
 
Any investigator scrutinizing Mr. Trump, former prosecutors said, is liable to be marked as an enemy, regardless of the nature of their inquiry. “They were out to destroy Trump, and they were members of our, you know, Central Intelligence or our F.B.I.,” Doug Jensen, 42, a QAnon follower from Iowa who stormed the Capitol, said in an interview with federal authorities, reflecting the views of many right-wing conspiracy theorists about Mr. Strzok and other investigators.

Mr. Windom is overseeing at least two key parts of the Justice Department’s sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack, according to grand jury subpoenas obtained by The New York Times and interviews with current and former prosecutors and defense attorneys.


One prong of the inquiry is focused on a wide array of speakers, organizers, security guards and so-called V.I.P.s who took part in Mr. Trump’s rally at the Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6. which directly preceded the storming of the Capitol. According to subpoenas, this part of the investigation is also seeking information on any members of the executive or legislative branch who helped to plan or execute the rally, or who tried to obstruct the certification of the election that was taking place inside the Capitol that day — a broad net that could include top Trump aides and the former president’s allies in Congress.

Mr. Windom’s second objective — mirroring one focus of the Jan. 6 committee — is a widening investigation into the group of lawyers close to Mr. Trump who helped to devise and promote the plan to create alternate slates of electors. Subpoenas related to this part of the inquiry have sought information about Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman as well as state officials connected to the fake-elector scheme.

One of the witnesses he subpoenaed is Patrick Gartland, a small business coach active in Georgia Republican politics, who turned aside efforts by Trump supporters to recruit him as a Trump elector in late 2020.
On May 5, Mr. Gartland, who was grieving the recent death of his wife, answered his front door to find two F.B.I. agents, who handed him an eight-page subpoena, signed by Mr. Windom. The subpoena, which he shared with The New York Times, asked him to provide emails, other correspondence or “any document purporting to to be a certificate certifying elector votes in favor of Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence.”

Mr. Windom’s subpoena sought information about all of Mr. Gartland’s interactions and appended a list of 29 names, which represents a road map, of sorts, to his wider investigation in Georgia and beyond.

It included Mr. Giuliani; Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner; Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump White House aide; other staff members and outside legal advisers to Mr. Trump, including Mr. Eastman, Ms. Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro; and a handful of Georgia Republicans whose names were listed on potential elector slates.

At least three of the people listed on the subpoena to Mr. Gartland — including David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and Brad Carver, another party official — were served similar documents by Mr. Windom’s team last week, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

At least seven others not on the list — among them Thomas Lane, an official who worked on behalf of Mr. Trump’s campaign in Arizona, and Shawn Flynn, a Trump campaign aide in Michigan — also received subpoenas, they said.

“I know little about President Clinton’s current sex scandal or our country’s troubles with Iraq, and I really do not care that much,” Mr. Windom wrote. “I place much more importance on what I am doing this weekend, why I have not asked that girl out yet or when I am going to have time to exercise tomorrow.”

Mr. Windom’s later career — beginning with his clerkship with Edith Brown Clement, a conservative judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans — belied that flippancy. From the start, even as a clerk, he adopted the mind-set of an aggressive prosecutor, writing a law journal article proposing a moderate loosening of a criminal defendant’s Miranda rights.

“Tom was always the go-to guy in the department for the big, important national security cases in and around the Beltway,” said Jamie McCall, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Mr. Windom to bring down a white supremacist group known as “The Base” out of the U.S. attorney’s office in Greenbelt, Md., in 2019.
Mr. Windom’s exhaustive work on two particular cases brought him to the attention of Mr. Garland’s team. One was the trial of “The Base” in 2020, in which he creatively leveraged federal sentencing guidelines to secure uncommonly lengthy prison terms for the group of white supremacists. The other was the case one year before of Christopher Hasson, a former Coast Guard lieutenant who had plotted to kill Democratic politicians.

But his blunt, uncompromising approach has, at times, chafed his courtroom opponents.

During Mr. Hasson’s post-trial hearing, Mr. Windom persuaded a federal judge to give Mr. Hasson a stiff 13-year sentence — beyond what would typically be given to a defendant pleading guilty to drug and weapons charges — as punishment for the violence he had intended to inflict.

During the hearing, Mr. Windom attacked a witness for the defense who argued for leniency; Mr. Hasson’s court-appointed lawyer at the time — who is now the Justice Department’s senior pardons attorney — said Mr. Windom’s behavior was “one of the most alarming things that I have heard in my practice in federal court.”
Mirriam Seddiq, a criminal defense lawyer in Maryland who opposed Mr. Windom in two fraud cases, said he was a personable but “inflexible” adversary who sought sentences that, in her view, were unduly harsh and punitive. But Ms. Seddiq said she thought he was well suited to his new job.

“If you are going to be a bastard, be a bastard in defense of democracy,” she said in an interview.
 
Last edited:
"attempted coup", "overturning election" - nice phrases for something that couldn't happen or wasn't attempted. I've not heard one piece on how anybody could or thought they could, get Trump declared the next president. It certainly could not have happened on January 6.
Well you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance and blind loyalty to stupidity, so your comment comes as little surprise.

For thinking adults, it is becoming clear that the Justice Department is building a fairly substantive case.
 
“Don’t underestimate how every single aspect of your life will be picked over, looked at, investigated, examined — you, your family, everything,” said Peter Strzok, who was the lead agent on the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia until it was discovered he had sent text messages to his adulterous pal and fellow FBI investigator admitting, “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
FTFY ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus
"attempted coup", "overturning election" - nice phrases for something that couldn't happen or wasn't attempted. I've not heard one piece on how anybody could or thought they could, get Trump declared the next president. It certainly could not have happened on January 6.
You have to ignore the 50 hours of phone calls to the Arizona and Georgia election officials to go in guns blazing like that.
 
Mr. Windom’s second objective — mirroring one focus of the Jan. 6 committee — is a widening investigation into the group of lawyers close to Mr. Trump who helped to devise and promote the plan to create alternate slates of electors. Subpoenas related to this part of the inquiry have sought information about Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman as well as state officials connected to the fake-elector scheme.

This seems like it is most likely to have legs. It seems rather impossible to me to prove culpability on exactly when a protest or demonstration became a riot, and if I'm not mistaken its extremely rare that speakers or organizers, even inflammatory ones, to be held responsible for actions committed by attendees. You'd probably have to literally have a hand signed memo saying "Ok, tell that guy in the buffalo head to go kill Mike Pence now."

But, assuming this false electors thing is straight up illegal, there's likely to be receipts. I suspect that the aspect of fomenting the crowd to violence is the more dramatic and shameful one, the electors thing is more likely to bring real legal consequences.
 
Mr. Windom’s second objective — mirroring one focus of the Jan. 6 committee — is a widening investigation into the group of lawyers close to Mr. Trump who helped to devise and promote the plan to create alternate slates of electors. Subpoenas related to this part of the inquiry have sought information about Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman as well as state officials connected to the fake-elector scheme.

This seems like it is most likely to have legs. It seems rather impossible to me to prove culpability on exactly when a protest or demonstration became a riot, and if I'm not mistaken its extremely rare that speakers or organizers, even inflammatory ones, to be held responsible for actions committed by attendees. You'd probably have to literally have a hand signed memo saying "Ok, tell that guy in the buffalo head to go kill Mike Pence now."

But, assuming this false electors thing is straight up illegal, there's likely to be receipts. I suspect that the aspect of fomenting the crowd to violence is the more dramatic and shameful one, the electors thing is more likely to bring real legal consequences.
100% agree.

It is pretty clear that Trump & Co. were willing to use ANY method possible --- whether illegally abusing the wheels of government OR fomenting a popular uprising --- to hold onto power. That has to be met with some negative consequences, or it will happen again.
 
THE TRUMP COUP

Cassidy Hutchinson Held Their Manhoods Cheap​

They all knew. But only the 26-year-old staffer would testify about it under oath.
by TIM MILLER

JUNE 28, 2022 4:05 PM
Cassidy Hutchinson Held Their Manhoods Cheap

(Composite / Photos: GettyImages)


This afternoon a 26-year-old former assistant showed more courage and integrity than an entire administration full of grown-ass adults who were purportedly working in service to the American people, but had long ago decided to serve only their ambition and grievance.

Cassidy Hutchinson did so at risk to her safety. Her social circle. Her career.

And she overcame all of the self-serving rationalizations that prevented the powerful, whose manhoods she held in her palm, from stepping to the plate.

It was a fitting testimony for me, seeing as it came on the day that I published Why We Did It, a book that aimed to answer the question: Why haven’t there been more Cassidys?

So I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the matter.

One of the lines I borrowed when reflecting on my own journey was from Tara Westover’s memoir, Educated: “Vindication has no power over guilt,” she wrote.

The stories Hutchinson relayed may have offered no solace to the consciences of those of us who feel partially responsible for getting here, but they were certainly the most potent vindication imaginable.

Everything that all of us Enemies of the People had warned about concerning Donald Trump was borne out in her testimony. He was chaotic, reckless, megalomaniacal, fascistic, abusive, cowardly, petulant, anti-American.
He attacked a Secret Service officer. Sprayed ketchup across a White House wall in anger. Expressed total lack of concern for the safety of others, as long as he felt he was secure. Was completely uninterested in our democratic traditions—the political machinery that actually makes America great—and was happy to overthrow the government in order to stay in power.

What Hutchinson revealed is something we all privately knew, but now have sworn testimony of every single person around Trump saw what we saw, firsthand. And yet they did nothing.

This is why everyone I interviewed for my book was so filled with hatred for the Never Trumpers, the media, and the liberals in their life. It’s because they knew we were right. And were unwilling to do anything about it. So rather than deal with their own culpability and take responsibility for themselves, they demonized those of us who spoke the truth. Because every time one of us said what they knew, out loud, it was an implicit indictment of their character.

Dealing with internalized shame is hard. Lashing out at those who make you feel bad about yourself is easy. To a man, the Trumpists took the easy path.

We also learned how these wannabe mafiosos would maintain solidarity by appealing to ambition and a demand that everyone be loyal team players.

Liz Cheney relayed testimony from another witness:
“What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World.”

With threats like these Trump maintained loyalty and preyed on the insecurities of people who decided they cared more about being invited to Mar-a-Lago for Cougarfest ’22 than they cared about the country they had signed up to serve.

Today’s testimony showed not only the complexes that led weak-minded men and women to go along with evil, but that they recognized this evil, full well, from the jump.

Cassidy Hutchinson found the strength to break out of this prison of the mind. She realized that she could write a different story for herself. That the enemy was not the people telling the truth about her boss. That she was not stuck on a conveyor belt. That she had responsibilities to her country. That she had agency in the execution of her duties.

That she didn’t have to do it any longer.

I hope others learn from her example.
 
100% agree.

It is pretty clear that Trump & Co. were willing to use ANY method possible --- whether illegally abusing the wheels of government OR fomenting a popular uprising --- to hold onto power. That has to be met with some negative consequences, or it will happen again.

The thing is, while January 6th was gross and embarrassing and shameful, I don't think it's really convincing for some to portray it like January 6 almost ended democracy. I don't think there's a scenario that anyone actually believes in which the rioters go in, kill Mike Pence, establish a fortified defense of the capitol, and Trump is president today and buffalo head guy is vice president. Unless we hear that Trump had the armed forces on his side, that's just a non starter to me. January 6 could have been a LOT worse, and it still wouldn't have ended democracy or installed Trump as monarch. Ultimately even if it got as bad as it could have, with members of congress slaughtered or something, that ultimately becomes a law enforcement operation, and one way or another, that's one thing we know how to bring a resolution to in this country.

(That doesn't mean Trump can't be held responsible for TRYING to make that happen, he can be. Just that there was no "success" outcome of January 6th that is the end of Democracy or our institutions)

But I feel like the more dramatic aspect of January 6 obscures the scarier part. The shenanigans around false electors and states not certifying election results is the much more salient point and more concerning to me. Had that happened, had Georgia and Arizona governors respondent as Trump wanted, or had this scheme of Clark's been executed, or Pence had not certified the election...now you are talking about a real mess and a constitutional crisis that we'd still be trying to crawl out of today. No, I don't believe that would have ultimately succeeded, but imagine the "Florida recount" situation, but for years, the damage would be extraordinary. To me, this was the real threat behind Trump's actions, not January 6.

I mean, our institutions did hold, and it's no small thing to ignore that partisan Republicans from Trump appointed judges, to Trump Justice Department staff, to hard right Georgia governors and election officials, to Pence himself, stood in the breach and prevented any traction. That says something to the stability of our system. But to my knowledge, nobody ever tried to actually test the system like Trump did. There was no real guarantee it would hold, and I'm not sure you can be sure it holds every time.

It's very worthy to ask ourselves how we safeguard those firewalls in the future, and how we hold responsible those that would try to undermine them like Trump did.
 
The thing is, while January 6th was gross and embarrassing and shameful, I don't think it's really convincing for some to portray it like January 6 almost ended democracy. I don't think there's a scenario that anyone actually believes in which the rioters go in, kill Mike Pence, establish a fortified defense of the capitol, and Trump is president today and buffalo head guy is vice president. Unless we hear that Trump had the armed forces on his side, that's just a non starter to me. January 6 could have been a LOT worse, and it still wouldn't have ended democracy or installed Trump as monarch. Ultimately even if it got as bad as it could have, with members of congress slaughtered or something, that ultimately becomes a law enforcement operation, and one way or another, that's one thing we know how to bring a resolution to in this country.

(That doesn't mean Trump can't be held responsible for TRYING to make that happen, he can be. Just that there was no "success" outcome of January 6th that is the end of Democracy or our institutions)

But I feel like the more dramatic aspect of January 6 obscures the scarier part. The shenanigans around false electors and states not certifying election results is the much more salient point and more concerning to me. Had that happened, had Georgia and Arizona governors respondent as Trump wanted, or had this scheme of Clark's been executed, or Pence had not certified the election...now you are talking about a real mess and a constitutional crisis that we'd still be trying to crawl out of today. No, I don't believe that would have ultimately succeeded, but imagine the "Florida recount" situation, but for years, the damage would be extraordinary. To me, this was the real threat behind Trump's actions, not January 6.

I mean, our institutions did hold, and it's no small thing to ignore that partisan Republicans from Trump appointed judges, to Trump Justice Department staff, to hard right Georgia governors and election officials, to Pence himself, stood in the breach and prevented any traction. That says something to the stability of our system. But to my knowledge, nobody ever tried to actually test the system like Trump did. There was no real guarantee it would hold, and I'm not sure you can be sure it holds every time.

It's very worthy to ask ourselves how we safeguard those firewalls in the future, and how we hold responsible those that would try to undermine them like Trump did.
The scenario was to indimate Congress into accepting Alternative Electors. Or make enough of a mess as possible they relent and let the baby stay President.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, while January 6th was gross and embarrassing and shameful, I don't think it's really convincing for some to portray it like January 6 almost ended democracy. I don't think there's a scenario that anyone actually believes in which the rioters go in, kill Mike Pence, establish a fortified defense of the capitol, and Trump is president today and buffalo head guy is vice president. Unless we hear that Trump had the armed forces on his side, that's just a non starter to me. January 6 could have been a LOT worse, and it still wouldn't have ended democracy or installed Trump as monarch. Ultimately even if it got as bad as it could have, with members of congress slaughtered or something, that ultimately becomes a law enforcement operation, and one way or another, that's one thing we know how to bring a resolution to in this country.

(That doesn't mean Trump can't be held responsible for TRYING to make that happen, he can be. Just that there was no "success" outcome of January 6th that is the end of Democracy or our institutions)

But I feel like the more dramatic aspect of January 6 obscures the scarier part. The shenanigans around false electors and states not certifying election results is the much more salient point and more concerning to me. Had that happened, had Georgia and Arizona governors respondent as Trump wanted, or had this scheme of Clark's been executed, or Pence had not certified the election...now you are talking about a real mess and a constitutional crisis that we'd still be trying to crawl out of today. No, I don't believe that would have ultimately succeeded, but imagine the "Florida recount" situation, but for years, the damage would be extraordinary. To me, this was the real threat behind Trump's actions, not January 6.

I mean, our institutions did hold, and it's no small thing to ignore that partisan Republicans from Trump appointed judges, to Trump Justice Department staff, to hard right Georgia governors and election officials, to Pence himself, stood in the breach and prevented any traction. That says something to the stability of our system. But to my knowledge, nobody ever tried to actually test the system like Trump did. There was no real guarantee it would hold, and I'm not sure you can be sure it holds every time.

It's very worthy to ask ourselves how we safeguard those firewalls in the future, and how we hold responsible those that would try to undermine them like Trump did.
Well that's the thing --- Trump isn't that smart ---- so he was trying a "throw all the shit against the wall and hope something sticks" strategy: lawsuits, election certifying shenanigans, strong-arming his VP, fomenting popular uprising --- he didn't care about the HOW he only cared about the OUTCOME --- himself retaining power.

Whether or not some, all or none of those efforts could or would have proved ultimately effective really doesn't matter. What matters is anyone who does not accept the peaceful transition of power and works to usurp that transition by any means (or in Trump's case ALL means) must face consequences or our system of government is effectively null and void.
 
The scenario was to indimate Congress into acceptable Alternative Electors. Or make enough of a mess as possible they relent and let the baby stay President.

But is that remotely realistic? That several hundred unarmed morons would stand down the entire congress, law enforcement, the military? I don't see how that happens. And it didn't come close to happening. I mean, could it have delayed things for some days if there was some kind of hostage standpoint, for sure. But I don't understand how what happened January 6th ends up it, "whelp, Trump's the king now."

I mean, maybe that's what Trump thought and and he can be held responsible for trying it, but I don't think anyone reasonable thinks that was close to actually coming to pass. I mean the playbook for a hostage situation, seige, or occupation is pretty straightforward. It might be messy, and would be bloody, but it's not like nobody would have any idea what to do about these yahoos in the capitol so I guess we'll just have to live with it.

But if Georgia doesn't certify the election results? Or Pence won't certify the election? I think its way less clear how that gets dealt with.
 
I mean, our institutions did hold, and it's no small thing to ignore that partisan Republicans from Trump appointed judges, to Trump Justice Department staff, to hard right Georgia governors and election officials, to Pence himself, stood in the breach and prevented any traction. That says something to the stability of our system. But to my knowledge, nobody ever tried to actually test the system like Trump did. There was no real guarantee it would hold, and I'm not sure you can be sure it holds every time.

It's very worthy to ask ourselves how we safeguard those firewalls in the future, and how we hold responsible those that would try to undermine them like Trump did.
And it should also be noted that the people in power in the GOP today are actively voting out, censuring or forcing to retire those types and replace them with authoritarian/Trumpists. So in effect, that just makes Jan. 6 and the events/efforts leading up to it a de facto dress rehearsal for the next time, when there might actually be more effective and canny insurrectionists/authoritarians in key positions.
 
But is that remotely realistic? That several hundred unarmed morons would stand down the entire congress, law enforcement, the military? I don't see how that happens. And it didn't come close to happening. I mean, could it have delayed things for some days if there was some kind of hostage standpoint, for sure. But I don't understand how what happened January 6th ends up it, "whelp, Trump's the king now."

I mean, maybe that's what Trump thought and and he can be held responsible for trying it, but I don't think anyone reasonable thinks that was close to actually coming to pass. I mean the playbook for a hostage situation, seige, or occupation is pretty straightforward. It might be messy, and would be bloody, but it's not like nobody would have any idea what to do about these yahoos in the capitol so I guess we'll just have to live with it.

But if Georgia doesn't certify the election results? Or Pence won't certify the election? I think its way less clear how that gets dealt with.
Definitely not unarmed. Did you see anything from today's hearings?
 
Well that's the thing --- Trump isn't that smart ---- so he was trying a "throw all the shit against the wall and hope something sticks" strategy: lawsuits, election certifying shenanigans, strong-arming his VP, fomenting popular uprising --- he didn't care about the HOW he only cared about the OUTCOME --- himself retaining power.

Whether or not some, all or none of those efforts could or would have proved ultimately effective really doesn't matter. What matters is anyone who does not accept the peaceful transition of power and works to usurp that transition by any means (or in Trump's case ALL means) must face consequences or our system of government is effectively null and void.

I agree with this. January 6 is a part of a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
"attempted coup", "overturning election" - nice phrases for something that couldn't happen or wasn't attempted. I've not heard one piece on how anybody could or thought they could, get Trump declared the next president. It certainly could not have happened on January 6.
Does the phrase "peaceful transition of power" mean anything to you.
 
But is that remotely realistic? That several hundred unarmed morons would stand down the entire congress, law enforcement, the military? I don't see how that happens. And it didn't come close to happening. I mean, could it have delayed things for some days if there was some kind of hostage standpoint, for sure. But I don't understand how what happened January 6th ends up it, "whelp, Trump's the king now."

I mean, maybe that's what Trump thought and and he can be held responsible for trying it, but I don't think anyone reasonable thinks that was close to actually coming to pass. I mean the playbook for a hostage situation, seige, or occupation is pretty straightforward. It might be messy, and would be bloody, but it's not like nobody would have any idea what to do about these yahoos in the capitol so I guess we'll just have to live with it.

But if Georgia doesn't certify the election results? Or Pence won't certify the election? I think its way less clear how that gets dealt with.
Only takes one Senator or Rep to fall and I bet they'd fold like paper. Not a lot of courage in Congress.
 
And it should also be noted that the people in power in the GOP today are actively voting out, censuring or forcing to retire those types and replace them with authoritarian/Trumpists. So in effect, that just makes Jan. 6 and the events/efforts leading up to it a de facto dress rehearsal for the next time, when there might actually be more effective and canny insurrectionists/authoritarians in key positions.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Kemp just won the primary with 75% of Republican voters, and even the Sec of State on the other end of Trump's infamous call won with enough to avoid a runoff. Pence appeared with Kemp in the days leading up to the primary. I'm not aware of any of the Trump judges who ruled against Stop the Steal being recalled, maybe I missed it.

What you say is more true about Republican critics of Trump. But not as much with people otherwise aligned with Trump who nonetheless executed their duties correctly.

But yes, it's a worthy point that we don't know what will happen next time.
 
Trump exposed how fragile our institutions are, and how one shameless, determined man (with some key enablers), can take down the whole thing.

Sure, it didn’t work…this time. Nobody knows how state and local officials will react if there’s a next time. Need to nip it in the bud.
 
Trump exposed how fragile our institutions are, and how one shameless, determined man (with some key enablers), can take down the whole thing.

Sure, it didn’t work…this time. Nobody knows how state and local officials will react if there’s a next time. Need to nip it in the bud.
I think this showed how strong our institutions are actually. The “most powerful man in the world” (President) was thwarted at every turn by those institutions.

I just hope Congress gets off their ass and passes the Electoral Count reform act and gets rid of the vagueness he tried to exploit
 
"attempted coup", "overturning election" - nice phrases for something that couldn't happen or wasn't attempted. I've not heard one piece on how anybody could or thought they could, get Trump declared the next president. It certainly could not have happened on January 6.
You really should try watching or reading the news sometime - it's not that hard to see what is right in front of you.
 
Trump exposed how fragile our institutions are, and how one shameless, determined man (with some key enablers), can take down the whole thing.

Sure, it didn’t work…this time. Nobody knows how state and local officials will react if there’s a next time. Need to nip it in the bud.
I will say this in addition to what you posted. Donald Trump proved we need term limits. A party can slowly build the people to become the end all be all. You can't corrupt people as easily with term limits.
 
"attempted coup", "overturning election" - nice phrases for something that couldn't happen or wasn't attempted. I've not heard one piece on how anybody could or thought they could, get Trump declared the next president. It certainly could not have happened on January 6.
I'll just leave this here for your perusal.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
torbee.....there is really very little doubt that Trump and his buddies were knivving and lying and working both ends against the middle from about Oct of 2020 until Biden's Inaguration Day. Anyone with HALF a damn brain could see it.....Only the Trump "kool-aiders" sided with that Orange Turd. It takes quite a man to be an incumbent with a relatively healthy economy to lose an election by 7M votes.....but Trump did! Trump [proved to all of us what a phuquin' loser he really is with his half-baked coup attempt in Jan of '21. Hang his ass! Phuque him. He is one pathetic POS.
 
"attempted coup", "overturning election" - nice phrases for something that couldn't happen or wasn't attempted. I've not heard one piece on how anybody could or thought they could, get Trump declared the next president. It certainly could not have happened on January 6.
Soooo...it's not possible to attempt a coup? Really? Are you absolutely sure about that or are you just dumb as a box of hair?
 
I think this showed how strong our institutions are actually. The “most powerful man in the world” (President) was thwarted at every turn by those institutions.

I just hope Congress gets off their ass and passes the Electoral Count reform act and gets rid of the vagueness he tried to exploit
Barely. A smarter, less ADHD type could’ve maybe pulled it off. Imagine a solid supporting cast instead of Rudy and Kraken and the Pillow Guy.

My point is simply, let’s not find out.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT