How can some Americans support a traitor for a President?

[fantome profane]

It was the Republican party that freed the slaves and the Democrats that opposed freeing them.

The Republican party was on the left, the party of Lincoln, in the time of Lincoln, was a very liberal progressive party as you yourself point out. If the Republican party of today returns to those liberal progressive values they would have my support.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Then we have a lot of traitors in government. Why single out Donald Trump?

There's no doubt about it.

The disregard for the Constitution by politicians today is all too obvious.

 

[Unfettered]

Here is the exact statement from John Kelly, Trump's own Chief of Staff. (1:50 - 3:30)

Thank you. There is no statement by Donald Trump?

 

[Unfettered]

“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”


“As the January 6 congressional certification proceeding approached and other efforts to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function failed, the Defendant [Trump] sought to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter the election results. The Defendant did this first by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to convince the Vice President to accept the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than count them. When that failed, the Defendant attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in Washington, D.C., to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election results.”



I will return to my previous claim: "anyone that voted for trump should lose their right to vote, just like any other criminal/felon."

Editorials are not what we need to examine here. We need to look at what President Trump said and did. That is the evidence that either supports the claim, or not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I appreciate that view, but as yet don't agree that it constitutes treason. Perhaps we should look at the actual words he said. Can you produce them here?

On January 6, in a rambling speech, Trump said the following (transcript available here):

"Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.​

​

"States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.​

​

"And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said: "Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage." And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen."​

Read all of that carefully: he is telling Mike Pence, his Vice President, to ignore his constitutional duty in the Senate on that day, and send the votes back to the states. That was not within his constitutional power to do, and therefore would have been an unlawful attempt to overturn the election. Pence didn't do that, but there is zero question that Donald Trump is telling him to do so.

The Constitution directs the president of the Senate (the VP) to open the certificates of the election results from the states in the presence of the Senate and House and instructs that the votes “shall then be counted,” said Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oregon. There is no suggestion of "unless he decides not to bother, and just send them back."

 

[Unfettered]

There's no doubt about it.

The disregard for the Constitution by politicians today is all too obvious.

That is what I see as well. I don't agree that "traitor" fits here, but if we're going to loosen the definition, it must be loosened for all. Otherwise our law is not impartial—and not worth anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you. There is no statement by Donald Trump?

What good would that do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I see as well. I don't agree that "traitor" fits here, but if we're going to loosen the definition, it must be loosened for all. Otherwise our law is not impartial—and not worth anything.

If a Democrat did the same I would have no problem pointing out how they were traitors too.

 

[PureX]

Thank you. There is no statement by Donald Trump?

This was Donald Trump's long time Chief of Staff. This man was IN THE ROOM and heard the words being spoken for himself. Do you think he's lying?

 

[Bthoth]

Editorials are not what we need to examine here. We need to look at what President Trump said and did. That is the evidence that either supports the claim, or not.

I used a fact check for that last quote. Trump does not shut up, you can look thru it all but I do not need too. I was in banking/real estate for over 30 yrs starting back in the 80's and have watched trump since I was a puppy. I am well aware that the fool is not just a crook but completely untrustworthy.

I have no interest in doing the homework for you and would have to be paid big bucks (upfront) to waste my time even trying.

 

[fantome profane]

That is what I see as well. I don't agree that "traitor" fits here, but if we're going to loosen the definition, it must be loosened for all. Otherwise our law is not impartial—and not worth anything.

Fair enough. And if Joe Biden tries to make Kamala Harris disregard the will of the people and impose his own wishes when she oversees the counting to the electoral votes in 2024, I would call Joe Biden a traitor.

 

[1137]

Bizarre comment in the light of reality.

What is bizarre about it?

 

[1137]

Are you really this stupid?

So your side is great and the other side is evil, your side is intelligent but the other side is stupid. Clearly not the result of propaganda campaigns, wholly reasonable.

 

[1137]

It was blue Cool-aid that freed the slaves,

The party that Lincoln belonged to, or the party that started the KKK?

gave women the vote, banned child labor, established the eight hour day and minimum wage, legalized unions, promoted equal justice, established health and safety regulations, established public education, created a middle class, &al...

I see the confusion, you think I'm opposed to the historical left but I'm not at all. I am historically left in fact. It's this modern abomination I oppose.

So yes. Democracy, justice and government of, by and for the people -- blue Cool-aid -- really is that good.

You're misusing the analogy. The left didn't need the metaphorical kool-aid before when they were actually the good guys.

 

[Unfettered]

On January 6, in a rambling speech, Trump said the following:

"Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.​

​

"States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.​

​

"And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said: "Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage." And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen."​

Read all of that carefully: he is telling Mike Pence, his Vice President, to ignore his constitutional duty in the Senate on that day, and send the votes back to the states. That was not within his constitutional power to do, and therefore would have been an unlawful attempt to overturn the election. Pence didn't do that, but there is zero question that Donald Trump is telling him to do so.

The Constitution directs the president of the Senate (the VP) to open the certificates of the election results from the states in the presence of the Senate and House and instructs that the votes “shall then be counted,” said Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oregon. There is no suggestion of "unless he decides not to bother, and just send them back."

I have read it carefully, and watched it "live" from the mouth of the speaker more than once. If all we have to go on here is what he said in his address, which you quoted, it comes up empty. The claim falls. I see Trump asserting:

• his understanding of what is right
• his understanding that "false information" was used
• his understanding of what VP Pence may do in the situation
• his understanding of what would be courageous for VP Pence to do
• his understanding of what would not constitute courage on the part of VP Pence
• his understanding of the overall outcome of VP Pence not doing what he (P Trump) understands is the right, possible, courageous thing to do
• that the composite of what "they" are involved in that day, all those there at the capitol, amounts to them not "letting" that outcome be

What is missing and what, to date, no human being has yet been able to produce, is a real, actual crime. For unless our law amounts to nothing, we are all free to have and express an understanding, and to act to make that understanding known. And that is all that I see that P Trump did.

Examples of an actual crime might include a conversation (including in an address to hundreds of thousands of people) in which President Trump orders his Vice President under real penalty of some kind, to break the law. Or a conversation in which P Trump orders VP Pence under real penalty to do something P Trump knows to be criminal. Or to falsify information. Or etc. etc. etc.

On January 6, P Trump made known what he understood was going on, how he felt about it, what he understood VP Pence could and should do, substantiated his reasons for being wrought up about it with a summary of the evidence he understood undergirded his claim of election fraud, and subjected the hearers to a copious amount of hyperbolic blather. Everything he said and did is innocent before the law. In no case or point did he say or do anything that actually constituted a violation of the law. That is my understanding.

I understand that I don't see what others see here, and that people are certain, and that folks are inflamed, etc. But I am neither partial, nor trying to be obtuse. I do not see a crime. It's not there. If folks want to keep trying, I'll keep looking. But we have to use the record of history, not the record of imagination or reading between lines or conspiracy connect-the-dots.

 

[Revoltingest]

As yet, I've not seen evidence that Donald Trump attempted a coup....

Not evidence?....
Demand that Pence overturn the election.
Demand that GA Sec'y of State "find" over 10k votes just for him.
Having Giuliani pretend a stolen election, knowing otherwise.

 

[1137]

Party policies change.

So why can you not admit this also applies to the democrats/left?

 

[SkepticThinker]

On what basis do you claim that then-President Trump "wanted to stop Pence from signing the transition of power"? If it was something he said, perhaps produce it here, word for word. If it was something he wrote that is in the public domain, perhaps produce it here, word for word. Let's look at it.

On the basis of his own words. And Pence's words. And the words of witnesses.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1346808075626426371

Trump suggests Pence should have 'overturned' 2020 election

In a statement Sunday, former President Donald Trump lashed out at efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act and said he wanted Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 results.

abcnews.go.com

Trump Told Pence They Wouldn’t Be Friends Anymore If the V.P. Didn’t Overturn the Election, Because He’s a 5-Year-Old

He also called Pence a “wimp,” because that’s the level of maturity we’re dealing with here.

www.vanityfair.com

Pence Says Trump Pushed Him ‘Essentially to Overturn the Election’ (Published 2023)

The remarks are some of the former vice president’s most pointed about what happened in the lead up to Jan. 6, 2021.

www.nytimes.com

Trump expressed support for hanging Pence during Capitol riot, Jan. 6 panel told

The select panel has heard that, after "hang Mike Pence” chants broke out, the then-president expressed support for the prospect of hanging his No. 2, three people told POLITICO.

www.politico.com

Pence says Trump was wrong that he could have overturned 2020 election

In a sharp rebuke of his former boss, former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said on Friday that Donald Trump was wrong to believe Pence had the power to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election that Trump has falsely claimed was stolen from him.

www.reuters.com

Read Pence's full letter saying he can't claim 'unilateral authority’ to reject electoral votes

Defying President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that he does not have the power to discard electoral votes that will make Democrat Joe Biden the next president on Jan. 20.

www.pbs.org

 

[Unfettered]

On the basis of his own words. And Pence's words. And the words of witnesses.

Show all the words in context. I will not "hunt" through links.

The Twitter post constitutes protected speech, not a crime. By law, it deserves what all speech deserves—the presumption of innocence. To make the tweet into a crime, one must dismiss the presumption of innocence, and decide that the speaker meant something that is not clearly conveyed in the speech itself. IE, that Pence had to do what Trump said; that he had not choice; that there would be reprisals; etc. Those things exist only in the imaginations of those who claim they are there.

This tweet reinforces the innocence of Trump's comments in his Jan 6 address, which pointed to Trump's understanding and hopes—not orders—relative to Pence:

"John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country and he looked at this, and he said what an absolute disgrace that this could be happening to our Constitution, and he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Editorials are not what we need to examine here. We need to look at what President Trump said and did. That is the evidence that either supports the claim, or not.

Watch the impeachment hearings.
Read the indictments.
That will better inform you.

There's a lot more than just the one speech he gave on January 6th.