Trump Wanted So Stay In Office. Long Live Trump.

In the lead-up to Jan. 6, 2021, Kelly Loeffler — then a Republican senator from Georgia — found herself at the center of Donald Trump's efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results in her state.
At the time, Loeffler was in the midst of a tight runoff for re-election against Raphael Warnock, who won more votes than she did in a special election weeks earlier (and was en route to doing so again — his win on Jan. 5 capped her Senate career at just over a year).

Loeffler got desperate.

She latched on to Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud in Georgia, and followed his lead in condemning fellow Republicans — like Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — who refused to fall in line. Now, thanks to a tranche of text messages obtained by The Atlanta Journal Constitution, we can see some of the frenzied and furious messages Loeffler is believed to have received while Trump world figures plotted their attempted coup with her in mind.

The AJC received the texts in a document sent by an anonymous source. The newspaper confirmed the veracity of the texts with four people who were participants in the conversations. Neither NBC News nor MSNBC has independently verified the texts.

In a statement to the newspaper, a spokeswoman for Loeffler called the public disclosure of the texts a “desperate attempt to distract voters 20 days from the election.”

Here are some of the most significant messages Loeffler received, according to the paper.

Mrs. Raffensperger goes off

One message, which apparently never got a reply from Loeffler, came from Raffensperger’s wife, Tricia. In it, she teed off on Loeffler for issuing a statement calling on Raffensperger to resign.
In her message, Tricia Raffensperger said she holds Loeffler “personally responsible” for anything that happens to her family as a result of Loeffler’s lies, and she declared Loeffler "not worthy" of being a senator for helping spread Trump's lies.
Brad Raffensperger testified to the House Jan. 6 Committee that he and his family faced death threats for his refusal to help Trump falsely declare himself the winner in Georgia.

Marge in the middle

Some of the most damning texts — the ones that seem to have the most legal liability attached to them — reportedly came from far-right then-Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

The Journal Constitution published texts Greene reportedly sent to Loeffler on Dec. 2, 2020, discussing “a plan we are developing” to challenge Joe Biden’s Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, and asking Loeffler to assist from the Senate. Weeks later, on Dec. 20, Greene reportedly texted Loeffler again with an invitation to a White House meeting where she, Trump and Trump’s legal team intended to discuss the plan.

Those texts could implicate Greene in Trump's seemingly criminal scheme if investigators show she knowingly engaged in this cockamamie plan. Evidence overwhelmingly shows Trump knew his claims of election fraud — which he used as the basis of his plot to overthrow the election — were false. Multiple White House officials told congressional investigators that they had informed Trump voter fraud didn’t cost him the election. Lawsuits challenging the vote count were repeatedly tossed out of court. And on Thursday, a federal judge confirmed Trump signed on to a federal lawsuit challenging the vote count in Georgia despite knowing the allegations at the heart of the suit were false.

That suit was filed in December, around the time Greene and other Team Trump members were discussing their anti-democratic plot to keep Trump in power.

Internal squabbles over Jan. 6

Other reported texts, apparently showing discussions among Loeffler’s team about whether to vote against certifying Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, seem to reveal some of Loeffler’s own staffers pushing back on the plan.

As pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, one of Loeffler's campaign advisers reportedly said, “This is a tinderbox and it’s beyond politics now. ... This objection will not ultimately prove to change anything but it will feed into the violence and condone it.”

Loeffler ultimately voted to confirm the results that day. But she also continued to target Raffensperger after being ousted from the Senate, calling for him to be investigated and questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 elections.


 
Other reported texts, apparently showing discussions among Loeffler’s team about whether to vote against certifying Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, seem to reveal some of Loeffler’s own staffers pushing back on the plan.

As pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, one of Loeffler's campaign advisers reportedly said, “This is a tinderbox and it’s beyond politics now. ... This objection will not ultimately prove to change anything but it will feed into the violence and condone it.”

Loeffler ultimately voted to confirm the results that day. But she also continued to target Raffensperger after being ousted from the Senate, calling for him to be investigated and questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 elections.
Loeffler appears to be a RINO now. Actions speak louder than words.
 
Despite his claims, former President Donald Trump privately conceded he lost to Joe Biden, according to video testimony from former administration officials. He also took dramatic steps to potentially withdraw troops from Afghanistan, steps that the committee showed he knew he had lost and wanted to make the move before incoming President Joe Biden took office.

(full article online)

 
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified that Donald Trump said he didn't want Americans to know that he lost the 2020 election and that he urged Meadows to "figure it out" to prevent the results from "embarrassing" him.

In a new video played during Thursday's public hearing held by the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Hutchinson said at one point she asked Meadows, "Does the president really think that he lost?"

Meadows replied that Trump had told him "a lot of the time" that he knew he lost the election but that "he wants to keep fighting."


"[Trump] knows it's over. He knows he lost. But we're going to keep trying. There are some good options out there still," Meadows told Hutchinson.

Asked what had happened after the Supreme Court declined to take up his election case, Hutchinson described seeing Trump as being "fired up" and "just raging" when he found out about the decision.

According to Hutchinson, the former president "said something to the effect of 'I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out. We need to figure it out. I don't want people to know that we lost.'" She said she was present during the conversation.

On December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit filed in Texas that challenged the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin that Trump saw as "his last chance at success in the courts," according to Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican.


(full article online )


 
This thread is dripping with TDS! :rolleyes:
It is preferable to all of those threads which drip of
those who have :

"Given Up Their Minds and Souls To A Dictator Wannabe "

Never listen to him saying that he KNEW that he had LOST the election. Fairly.

Or ALL of his Aides and others who also knew that he had lost the election.

The Man who Hates losing. Because it "Embarrasses him" to lose.

The Republicans in Congress knew he had lost. Which is why they Certified Joe Biden on January 6th.


Repeat the nonsense of TDS, which is nothing more than an imitation of BDS, for GW Bush.

Republicans have absolutely nothing original to offer.

Long live Trump, or he will die of embarrassment and no one paying attention to him.

And not paying attention to him means not being able to make money off of those who will follow him and donate to him, no matter what.



LLGT !!

Long Live Grifter Trump !!!
 
It is preferable to all of those threads which drip of
those who have :

"Given Up Their Minds and Souls To A Dictator Wannabe "

Never listen to him saying that he KNEW that he had LOST the election. Fairly.

Or ALL of his Aides and others who also knew that he had lost the election.

The Man who Hates losing. Because it "Embarrasses him" to lose.

The Republicans in Congress knew he had lost. Which is why they Certified Joe Biden on January 6th.


Repeat the nonsense of TDS, which is nothing more than an imitation of BDS, for GW Bush.

Republicans have absolutely nothing original to offer.

Long live Trump, or he will die of embarrassment and no one paying attention to him.

And not paying attention to him means not being able to make money off of those who will follow him and donate to him, no matter what.



LLGT !!

Long Live Grifter Trump !!!

Wake up!

1666403754831.png
 
Trump saw the stolen election coming.
He always sees something coming. He has a crystal ball and always says that if he does not win, be it in 2016 or 2020, that the election was rigged against him.

He went to over 60 courts, and then the SC and they could not care less about the lack of proof he had his lawyers show to those Judges.

No evidence, means that there is no evidence, because it did not happen.

Wanting to stay in power, by being elected, is different from wanting to stay in power by alleging you are going to have the election stolen from you, which he started alleging in July of 2020, way before the elections happened.

Can Trump see the results of all the evidence against him from trying to manipulate the 2020 elections to being the mastermind of 1/6/20, to having taken documents from the WH he had no right to take?


What is his Crystal Ball saying to him?
 


2/ Judge Carter ruled the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to 8 emails related to Trump & Eastman’s lawsuits to delay/disrupt the 1-6 vote & knowing misrepresentation of voter fraud numbers in a fed'l case in GA trying to overturn the election.

3/ 8 may be sound like a small percent of the over 500 emails Judge Carter reviewed but it’s an astonishing conclusion to reach regarding a then-sitting president of the United States. It shows an ongoing course of criminality, not an inquiry that was quickly abandoned.

4/ Trump signed a verification to the fed'l lawsuit attesting that the information in it was correct to the best of his knowledge. That’s serious, because before the federal case was filed, Eastman communicated that the numbers were made up junk.

5/ if you're interested in how the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege worked here, how much trouble Trump is in, & what it means for ongoing criminal investigations against him, I discuss topics like this in my newsletter, civil discourse.
 
This is from the new book by journalist Maggie Haberman:


Former President Donald Trump repeatedly told aides in the days following his 2020 election loss that he would remain in the White House rather than let incoming President Joe Biden take over, according to reporting provided to CNN from a forthcoming book by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.

“I’m just not going to leave,” Trump told one aide, according to Haberman.

“We’re never leaving,” Trump told another. “How can you leave when you won an election?”

Trump’s insistence that he would not be leaving the White House, which has not been previously reported, adds new detail to the chaotic post-election period in which Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat and numerous efforts to overturn the election result led to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by pro-Trump rioters.

Haberman’s book, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America,” is being released on October 4.

The revelations from the book come as investigators in the US House and the Justice Department probe Trump’s refusal to cede power after the 2020 election. The House select committee investigating January 6 is planning more hearings and a final report this fall, while federal investigators have recently served several former Trump aides with subpoenas.

Haberman, a CNN political analyst, has covered Trump for the New York Times since his 2016 presidential campaign. Her stories made her a frequent target of Trump’s vitriol on Twitter.

Haberman writes that in the immediate aftermath of the November 3 elections, Trump seemed to recognize he had lost to Biden. He asked advisers to tell him what had gone wrong. He comforted one adviser, saying, “We did our best.” Trump told junior press aides, “I thought we had it,” seemingly almost embarrassed by the outcome, according to Haberman.

But at some point, Trump’s mood changed, Haberman writes, and he abruptly informed aides he had no intention of departing the White House in late January 2021 for Biden to move in.

He was even overheard asking the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, “Why should I leave if they stole it from me?”

Trump’s vow that he would refuse to vacate the White House had no historical precedent, Haberman writes, and his declaration left aides uncertain as to what he might do next. The closest parallel might have been Mary Todd Lincoln, who stayed in the White House for nearly a month after her husband, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated, the author noted.

Publicly, Trump dismissed questions about whether he would leave office. On November 26, 2020, he was asked by a reporter whether he would leave the White House if the Electoral College voted for Biden. “Certainly I will, and you know that,” Trump said in response, as he continued to spread lies about the election being stolen.

A longtime New York-based reporter who has worked for both of the city’s tabloid newspapers, Haberman writes that Trump’s post-election period was reminiscent of his attempts to claw his way back from dire financial straits three decades earlier, in which he tried to keep all options open for as long as he could.

But Trump couldn’t decide which path to follow after his 2020 defeat. Haberman writes that he quizzed nearly everyone about which options would lead to success – including the valet who brought Diet Cokes when Trump pressed a red button on his Oval Office desk.

The reporting provided to CNN from the forthcoming book also reveals new details on what those around Trump were doing in the aftermath of an election loss he refused to accept. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was reluctant to confront Trump on the loss, according to Haberman.

When he encouraged a group of aides to go to the White House and brief the then-President, Kushner was asked why he wasn’t joining them himself. Trump’s son-in-law likened it to a deathbed scene, Haberman writes.

“The priest comes later,” Kushner said.


Why should anyone believe a NYT journalist?
 
We’ve been discussing, with good reason, the mounting legal problems the former president faces. It’s not just DOJ’s Big Lie/Insurrection investigation, it’s Mar-a-Lago, and it’s the possibility of contempt if Trump fails to comply with a Congressional subpoena. His company goes to trial this coming week, he faces a February trial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, the New York AG is after him civilly, the Fulton County, Georgia district attorney is investigating him criminally. There are so many that I’ve probably left out a few.
But in many of these investigations, it’s not just Trump who’s on the minds of prosecutors, and certainly not when it comes to the January 6 committee. If the (possibly) final hearing made anything clear, it’s that the committee has a conspiracy’s worth of targets in sight. That shouldn’t come as much of a surprise with Obama-era U.S. Attorney Tim Heaphy in place as Chief Investigation Counsel for the Committee. And Heaphy onboarded a staff flush with former prosecutors.

Prosecutors think conspiracy any time they see two or more people involved in a potential crime. Committee members seem to be thinking conspiracy too. In previous hearings, Liz Cheney invoked specific crimes, like conspiring to obstruct the electoral vote certification, and she squarely rejected the idea that Trump was being led by people around him. Instead, the committee had a laser beam focus on Trump’s central role in events. In the subpoena they sent to him on Friday, they clarified any doubt. In their view of the evidence, he “personally orchestrated and oversaw” the conspiracy..



In the federal system, there are numerous conspiracy charges prosecutors can choose from when it comes to indicting. Some are general and used across a broad spectrum of crimes. Others are more specific, like civil rights conspiracies or drug conspiracies. There is the seditious conspiracy statute currently being used to prosecute members of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys in connection with the insurrection. That statute requires proof of an agreement to use force in some way to interfere with, in the case of the militia groups, the transfer of power to the new administration. Publicly there is scant evidence that Trump himself entered into an agreement involving the use of force. While DOJ may have more, it would need to rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That could develop if the seditious conspiracy trials currently underway lead to more evidence and to cooperating witnesses. But, leaving seditious conspiracy aside, the more general conspiracy statute is something Trump’s lawyers have to be very concerned about at this point.

We’ve talked about the general conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, before on Civil Discourse, using my very helpful chickens to illustrate key points about the law.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...436b-090a-4285-8e1a-11481aa07077_452x802.jpeg
The basic gist of the statute is that it’s a crime for two or more people to agree to violate the law. The second prong of 18 USC 371 also makes it a crime “if two or more persons conspire . . . to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.” That clause can also be used to address interference with governmental functions.
To convict on this charge, prosecutors would need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant entered into an agreement, (2) to obstruct a lawful function of the Government, (3) by deceitful or dishonest means, and (4) committed at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The notion of impeding a government function is broad. The statute doesn’t place limits on the methods a defendant uses to defraud the United States and extends generally to any interference with a lawful governmental function by dishonest means.

If interfering with certification of a presidential election doesn’t count as a violation of this statute, I don’t know what would. It’s the poster child for the crime.

So far, there is no direct evidence that Trump entered the conspiracy, at least not in public view. We don’t have a witness who will testify that he agreed with Trump or was there when Trump and others agreed to overturn the election. But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence and the absence of direct evidence isn’t a bar to a prosecution. You may not have a witness who can testify that they saw it snowing (direct evidence) but if you have one who can testify there was no snow on the ground when they went to sleep and the ground was covered in snow when they woke up six hours later, you have strong circumstantial evidence. Add in evidence that no one saw big trucks bringing in snow overnight and your evidence is getting very solid. That’s what the January 6 committee’s case against Trump is about. It’s a layering of circumstantial evidence into proof. It’s drawing inferences from Trump’s own statements about not accepting election results unless he won, and his campaign manager Brad Parscale’s testifying there was talk of claiming victory despite defeat as early as July of 2020. There is Trump’s refusal to call off his supporters as they overran the Capitol. There is so much more. The committee has neatly packaged up all of that circumstantial evidence, tied a big red ribbon around it, and presented it to DOJ.
The maximum sentence for a violation of 18 USC 371 is 5 years. While that might not seem like much, it’s a long time for someone in their late seventies. And I remain convinced Trump is likely to be indicted in connection with the documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

Whether or not DOJ will eventually charge Trump with a conspiracy is a different question, one they will answer on their own timeline, as the Attorney General has repeatedly said. They could be considering other charges as well.

There has been lots of criticism of Merrick Garland. Some people think he’s weak or slow. Others have said he’s afraid to charge Trump or that he’s too much of an institutionalist to do so. Although I still have questions about why DOJ doesn’t appear to have aggressively investigated the insurrection during Garland’s first year in office, I think the criticism that he’s too much of an institutionalist actually highlights one of his strengths, and perhaps, even the reason President Biden selected him for the job. At a time when one party is willing to burn down our institutions to hold onto power, we need someone who steadfastly believes the rule of law still matters.

One suspects Merrick Garland would have rather done anything than be the first Attorney General to indict a former president. The risk, of course, is becoming a banana republic where parties in power routinely prosecute their political opponents. But Trump’s conduct is so singular, and there is so much of it, that it is going to have to be addressed if the rule of law is going to continue to mean something in this country.

If Garland does prosecute, he’ll do it in a careful way precisely because of his commitment to the institutions. He won’t be out to get anyone; he’ll be out to do justice. He’ll do it in a way that is respectful of defendants’ rights, no matter what they’ve done and whether it’s the former president of the United States or other members of any conspiracy he may charge. That, of course, won’t be enough to make the former president’s fans happy, but it should be enough for the rest of the country. It will mean that in the face of great danger to the country, we got it right.

There are still so many unknowns. The clock is ticking, and Trump has an unpleasant knack for slipping out from underneath accountability. Whether he’s ultimately prosecuted or not, the committee has placed him squarely in a leadership role in the January 6 conspiracy. Trump is the drug kingpin of the insurrection.

Now, Trump can respond to those allegations and tell his side of the story by testifying in front of the committee. It’s unlikely he will—it would be more Trump’s style to demand an open mic and a televised appearance in front of the country than agree to the same questioning procedure with committee professional staff used with other witnesses. It’s not difficult to imagine he will refuse to show up if his demands aren’t met. But one way or the other, there will be a record of his response—ignoring a Congressional subpoena or complying with it, testifying under oath or refusing to do so. And we will all be able to draw the obvious conclusions from that.


 
[ Trump seems to be afraid of Pence two years before the 2024 elections. And still very unforgiving. How I miss the good old days, quite recent, when elections were thought about the year of the election ]

Donald Trump has complained that it would be “very disloyal” if former Vice President Mike Penceor any other member of his Cabinet decided to run against him in the GOP primary for the 2024 presidential race.

The comment was startking, given the former president’s silence for hours as his supporters rampaged through the Capitol Jan. 6 last year calling for Pence to be hanged if he didn’t follow Trump’s orders to overthrow the presidential vote.

“Many of them have said they would never run if I run, so we’ll see whether or not that turns out to be true,” the former president said Thursday, referring to his Cabinet members, in a phone interview with Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade.

“I think it would be very disloyal if they did,” Trump added.


(full article online )

While a frontrunner among Republican voters in possible matchups, Trump falsely boasted to Kilmeade that polls “have me leading by 40, 50 points” against contenders. Trump said he’ll decide whether to run for the presidency again “in the not-too-distant future.”

 

Forum List

Back
Top