Aaron Blake writes that two days after his “he could have overturned the Election!” remark, Trump is asking for a mulligan.
But if you drill down, what the statement really seems to be about, in large part, is walking back his comments on precisely what that scheme entailed.
Mr. Stable Genius may have realized he had clarified his criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe not.
On January 6, Trump wanted Vice President Pence to take one of two options — either reject some states’ ballots outright — immediately giving the election to Trump — or declare that some states’ ballots were in dispute and had to be sent back to the states, where the outcome might be settled by (Republican) state legislators — eventually giving the election to Trump. Or, maybe it would have resulted in a vote in the U.S. House, with one vote per state. Any of those outcomes would have given the election to Trump. Pence didn’t act as instructed, either because of a momentary flush of principles or a loss of nerve.
In his Sunday statement, Aaron Blake said, Trump favored the immeciate option — Pence could have just tossed the “bad” ballots and given the election to Trump. Blake writes that by Tuesday he had changed his tune.
On Tuesday, though, Trump very conspicuously focused only on the latter option, mentioning it twice in the course of a characteristically false series of claims.
Trump said the Electoral Count Act reform effort shows that “the Vice President did have this right or, more pointedly, could have sent the votes back to various legislators for reassessment after so much fraud and irregularities were found.”
The “more pointedly” is doing a lot of work here. Trump’s use of it makes clear this is intended to suggest his goal might have been the supposedly more-benign option — no matter what he said Sunday.
Perhaps he’s thinking that “sending the contested ballots back to the states” is less obviously criminal than “overturning the election.”
To drive the point home, Trump returned at the end of his statement to the idea that sending it back to the states was what Pence should have and could have done — rather than, apparently, trying to overturn the election himself.
“Therefore, the Unselect Committee should be investigating … why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval, in that it has now been shown that he clearly had the right to do so!” Trump concluded.
Of course, that hasn’t been shown at all, except in Trump’s head.
Also at WaPo, Philip Bump describes the sloppy, patchwork, spaghetti-at-the-wall effort to steal the presidency. This one shouldn’t be behind a paywall, so do read it.
tRUMP is getting more and more desperate, and hence, crazier!
I mean, what sane person would want this committee to look into why his VP didn't do something illegal?!?
And Jeffrey Clark is in front of the committee right now?
Pleading the 5th, no doubt!
Of course, he's still pushing his phony claims. What choice does he have? He's boxed himself in and lost the ability to move his players around the board. All he can do now is make noise and wait for his checkmate to come via racist prosecutors.
I think your opening statement from the previous post is the point here. Trump's lawyers weren't just banging their heads against the wall – they may have threatened to dump Trump as a client.I have dealt with criminal defense lawyers – they do not like it when you go rogue. Trump confessed to a crime in writing – this particularly affects the GA case which is going to a special grand jury that the court just authorized. IMO, the odds of Trump being charged in GA went up dramatically.
My guess is that Trump's lawyers are failing to deliver what Trump is demanding. For example, the J6 Committee got the documents Trump tried to block through legal action. That means they don't just know – they can now prove. So Trump, who thought he was being clever, admitted out loud what he'd been trying to suppress. J6 was a planned last-ditch effort to "overthrow the election."
In my opinion, Trump expected, demanded, instructed his lawyers to delay everything until 2024 because the office of the presidency is a fantastic shield. (It may have been a factor in the desperate efforts to steal the election – the fear of prosecution without the power to derail almost any litigation except impeachment.
So this stuff is coming up – civil litigation in NY this year re tax evasion and loan fraud. The bar of evidence is lower, so let's guess they get a civil conviction. That opens the door to criminal litigation in 2023. GA is going to a special grand jury soon. With a confession in writing, maybe a criminal indictment this year, trial in 2023. The rape case seems to be going forward – deposition and possible DNA sample might prove the act. That's civil (defamation) but it's damaging if Trump loses. I don't think the woman (Jean Carroll) will not be bought off.
There are multiple J6 civil suits against Trump – there are fraud cases against the Trump organization. Here's a complete list with updated status updates: https://www.justsecurity.org/75032/litigation-tracker-pending-criminal-and-civil-cases-against-donald-trump/
Which brings me to Trump's offer to pardon the J6 rioters in combination with a call for "protests" coupled with a claim of racist persecution against Trump. So nobody misunderstands that this is a call for riots if Trump is incicted, read the quote: "
Former President Trump on Saturday warned of "the biggest protest we have ever had" in the United States if prosecutors "do anything illegal" in their investigations into him and his businesses.
Speaking at a rally in Conroe, Texas, on Saturday, Trump spoke about the local and federal probes targeting his businesses and political activities, including lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol.
"If these radical, vicious racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had … in Washington, D.C, in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere because our country and our elections are corrupt,"
Guess who gets to define, "wrong or illegal." Looks to me like Trump will turn lose a rabid mob in each of the places he's going to stand trial. That's not a vote of confidence in Trump's legal defense team (and I bet they are charging him by the inhale and exhale with cash paid in advance.)
The thing to watch is whether the GOP (party organization) can extract itself from Trump without a significant radical faction breaking from the GOP and starting their own party. How McConnell plays his cards may be more significant than how Trump plays his.
Not everyone is a Lady Gaga, who can reinvent herself and stay on top or some might claim rise even higher, Trust is the coin of the political realm, it was once said, but Trump proved it does not matter to some voters. He exploits the people you can fool all of the time. He is a creature of habit and set in his ways. He has hung on his big lie for so long that redemption and recovery of trust from the people you can only fool some of the time is impossible. He demands a base who can detach completely from reality. It tis his only schtick and he is sticking with it.
Trump does not need better crooked lawyers he just thinks he does. Trump needs professional help to support an insanity plea. I am told this is for people whose mental state is such they cannot tell right from wrong and cannot help in their own defense. It would be a stretch, but he has many wolves at his door.
Trump's habit of doubling down on his blatant BS is a feature, not a bug. To his followers, it proves he is a "good leader".
Sadly, it all comes back to the tribal leader/follower dynamic which probably predates the evolution of Homo Sapiens. Leaders need to be good liars:
First, lying is a useful negotiating tactic, and negotiating (inside & outside the Tribe) is an important part of a Leader's "job". Also, "Honest" leaders might be less likely to detect other people's lies.
Secondly, followers want/need Leaders to take responsibility for all the dirty work (war, murder, enslavement, theft, etc) that brings advantages to the Tribe. Most people just want to live simple, decent lives, unburdened by guilt about massacres their Tribe perpetrated. Leaders tell them that they are Good People, that Everything We Do is OK, don't worry about it, now it's Party Time!
The GOP understands this 2nd dynamic, and has been using it to win elections for decades (Google "Reagan"). Key aspects of the Democratic Coalition make it hard to use that technique: Blacks & Native Americans can't ignore the evil parts of our history; and intellectual Liberals refuse to. Across decades, the GOP built their electoral Base by telling them what they want to hear: they're Good People, and those pesky Democrats who keep harping on Slavery & genocide are Bad People.
But to do this, the GOP has had to fight against objective Truth, so they led their followers ever deeper into denial. But the GOP had to maintain a veneer of respectability – Soccer Moms don't go for the real KKK stuff – so they carefully stuck to dog-whistling. In 2016, Trump changed all that.
The Mob loves Trump precisely *because* he has the balls to lie blatantly and ignore what we call "facts". What we call stubborn idiocy, they see as Resolute Commitment to the Tribe.