Trump Is Not an 'Insurrectionist' By Larry Elder

[Revmitchell]

As to fomenting an "insurrection," Kash Patel, chief of staff for the acting Secretary of Defense said that on Jan. 4, "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the request, come in. But those requests never did." Patel says he testified under oath to the Jan. 6 committee that he was in the room when Trump made this authorization.

What part of "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" — as Trump said in his Jan. 6 speech — do the Jan. 6 committee members not understand? Yes, the speech ended with, "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." But politicians have long used rhetoric like "We're going to fight," or "We're going to take back America," or "This is war."
Trump Is Not an 'Insurrectionist', by Larry Elder

fbclid=IwAR1wxVX7SKCr5MAfENLT5QN49Ykhqx4EFuuCOYaccDoWI6O8cv_B7ytZkR0

 

[AustinC]

Who is Larry Elder?

 

[Revmitchell]

Who is Larry Elder?

The Larry Elder Show - The Sage from South Central

 

[JonC]

Who is Larry Elder?

Radio show host from Los Angeles.

 

[777]

he also ran for governor in the California recall, lost badly to Newsom.

He's right again, Insurrection my foot. He knows the reason behind this:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

that tool Garland had better back right off, railroading Trump will set off CW2.

 

[AustinC]

Who or what is CW2?

This extreme right lingo is hard to follow. Do you all have an ERL cheat sheet?

 

[JonC]

Who or what is CW2?

This extreme right lingo is hard to follow. Do you all have an ERL cheat sheet?

CW2 is a military rank.....but here I suspect it means Cold War 2....? Or not....that doesn't make sense.

Each side must maintain their own play books. No cameras in the dugout. They know what they mean. Nobody else cares, I think.

 

[Baptist Believer]

As to fomenting an "insurrection," Kash Patel, chief of staff for the acting Secretary of Defense said that on Jan. 4, "Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the request, come in. But those requests never did." Patel says he testified under oath to the Jan. 6 committee that he was in the room when Trump made this authorization.

Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller testified under oath that Trump failed to give any such order prior to January 6th.

Someone has lied under oath. My money is on Kash Patel as the perjurer.

 

[Reynolds]

Without getting in the weeds, it is obvious Trump is no insurrectionist. Had Trump wanted to commit insurrection, he could have done a thousand fold better job than what happened. He had the following to easily spark off a civil war if he wanted to.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Without getting in the weeds, it is obvious Trump is no insurrectionist. Had Trump wanted to commit insurrection, he could have done a thousand fold better job than what happened.

He wanted to remain President with a fig leaf of respectability, as the perpetual victim that was vindicated.

He had the following to easily spark off a civil war if he wanted to.

Setting off a civil war would not accomplish his goals. He did not have the military on his side and it would have been crushed.

What is damning about your statement about his “following,” is that it is absolutely true. Trump has a following that is willing to reject the Constitution and the will of the majority of the population to make Trump a dictator, benevolent or otherwise.

 

[Reynolds]

He wanted to remain President with a fig leaf of respectability, as the perpetual victim that was vindicated.


Setting off a civil war would not accomplish his goals. He did not have the military on his side and it would have been crushed.

What is damning about your statement about his “following,” is that it is absolutely true. Trump has a following that is willing to reject the Constitution and the will of the majority of the population to make Trump a dictator, benevolent or otherwise.

The Democrats rejected The Constitution by rigging the election. Blind people will continue to buy the narrative. No one knows who the military is loyal to. It would most likely divide if a civil war happened. That is what always happens.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The Democrats rejected The Constitution by rigging the election.

There is absolutely no evidence for such a thing. Moreover, Trump's attorneys have never claimed the election was rigged in court, only in press conferences where they were no under oath.

Blind people will continue to buy the narrative.

You're right. Willingly blind people continue to believe the big lie about the election being stolen. One day reality might dawn on those persons, but there is such a commitment to the victimhood narrative that many will go to their graves believing it was stolen.

No one knows who the military is loyal to. It would most likely divide if a civil war happened. That is what always happens.

That's true. Those that are loyal to the Constitution and rule of law (most soldiers) will be loyal to the United States. The delusional and those who will willingly violate their oath to the Constitution will be a modest minority that will be stopped, perhaps with lethal force.

One of the great problems with the loyal Trump supporters is that they tend to only associate with people who believe the same lies. Then they assume that "most" people believe like they do and wildly overestimate their influence. Unscrupulous politicians take advantage of those persons, since they have proven themselves to be easily deceived, and cater to them for votes and influence.

The January 6th hearings have demonstrated, with sworn testimony from Republicans at all levels, that every Republican who is in power knows that Trump lost a fair election.

Time to leave the lies of darkness and come into the light of truth.

 

[Reynolds]

There is absolutely no evidence for such a thing. Moreover, Trump's attorneys have never claimed the election was rigged in court, only in press conferences where they were no under oath.


You're right. Willingly blind people continue to believe the big lie about the election being stolen. One day reality might dawn on those persons, but there is such a commitment to the victimhood narrative that many will go to their graves believing it was stolen.


That's true. Those that are loyal to the Constitution and rule of law (most soldiers) will be loyal to the United States. The delusional and those who will willingly violate their oath to the Constitution will be a modest minority that will be stopped, perhaps with lethal force.

One of the great problems with the loyal Trump supporters is that they tend to only associate with people who believe the same lies. Then they assume that "most" people believe like they do and wildly overestimate their influence. Unscrupulous politicians take advantage of those persons, since they have proven themselves to be easily deceived, and cater to them for votes and influence.

The January 6th hearings have demonstrated, with sworn testimony from Republicans at all levels, that every Republican who is in power knows that Trump lost a fair election.

Time to leave the lies of darkness and come into the light of truth.

Election fraud has been proven in Texas. You will see it proven in Ga after the midterms. The Republicans holding off to protect Kemp until after his race is over. 2000 mules proves ballot harvesting and election fraud.

 

[JonC]

One of the great problems with the loyal Trump supporters is that they tend to only associate with people who believe the same lies. Then they assume that "most" people believe like they do and wildly overestimate their influence. . . . Time to leave the lies of darkness and come into the light of truth.

This is true of many in both parties (use "Trump" as a blank). Politicians love their sheeple because they are sheeple.

What was that song about being treated like a mushroom (Charlie Daniels?)? Some have grown accustomed to being mushrooms. They know nothing else.

 

[JonC]

This is true of many in both parties (use "Trump" as a blank). Politicians love their sheeple because they are sheeple.

What was that song about being treated like a mushroom (Charlie Daniels?)? Some have grown accustomed to being mushrooms. They know nothing else.

Not Charlie Daniels. Travis Tritt.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Election fraud has been proven in Texas.

I don't know who told you that lie, but it's not true at all. There are a number of individuals who voted twice or more for Trump, but that's voter fraud, not election fraud.

You will see it proven in Ga after the midterms. The Republicans holding off to protect Kemp until after his race is over.

Uh huh... Right. Even if what you said was true, then you are making a claim that Republicans are hiding election fraud. That's a crime.

2000 mules proves ballot harvesting and election fraud.

That's quite funny. You want so badly to have your views validated, you can't even think critically about what the film allegedly shows. As Bill Barr said, 2000 Mules is "bull [manure]."

 

[Reynolds]

I don't know who told you that lie, but it's not true at all. There are a number of individuals who voted twice or more for Trump, but that's voter fraud, not election fraud.


Uh huh... Right. Even if what you said was true, then you are making a claim that Republicans are hiding election fraud. That's a crime.


That's quite funny. You want so badly to have your views validated, you can't even think critically about what the film allegedly shows. As Bill Barr said, 2000 Mules is "bull [manure]."

Texas A.G. had filed charges.
Bill Barr lies about a lot. What part of 2000 mules can you dispute?
Republicans in Ga hiding election fraud? No, just slow walking the investigation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Texas A.G. had filed charges.

Unless you mean this VOTER fraud (that's different from election fraud) to influence a utility board election, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide a link to a story about it.

Bill Barr lies about a lot.

Under oath?

What part of 2000 mules can you dispute?

2000 Mules didn't actually prove anything to dispute. It only showed that persons regularly traveled near voter drop boxes. Drop boxes are placed in high traffic areas, so people traveling to work and back, delivery people, and other citizens conducting their own business unrelated to the drop boxes were used as "evidence."

A moment's critical thought would reveal it doesn't demonstrate anything.

Here's one of many analyses of the credibility of the film.

Moreover, Dinesh D’Souza has a long and weird history of deception and questionable ethical choices.

 

[Reynolds]

Unless you mean this VOTER fraud (that's different from election fraud) to influence a utility board election, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide a link to a story about it.


Under oath?


2000 Mules didn't actually prove anything to dispute. It only showed that persons regularly traveled near voter drop boxes. Drop boxes are placed in high traffic areas, so people traveling to work and back, delivery people, and other citizens conducting their own business unrelated to the drop boxes were used as "evidence."

A moment's critical thought would reveal it doesn't demonstrate anything.

Here's one of many analyses of the credibility of the film.

Moreover, Dinesh D’Souza has a long and weird history of deception and questionable ethical choices.

Did you watch 2000 mules? They match the phones and the video of box drops.

 

[canadyjd]

Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller testified under oath that Trump failed to give any such order prior to January 6th.

Someone has lied under oath. My money is on Kash Patel as the perjurer.

I believe he is using the same semantics Cheney used when she said Trump never ordered the national guard into Washington, DC.

My understanding is local officials must make the request and POTUS approves. Absent the local request, POTUS is limited in ordering national guard troops into areas by federal law.

Trump gave pre-approval should the local request be made. It was Polosi and the Mayor of DC that failed to request national guard.

I believe Trump did everything he could do under federal law to make the troops available for January 6.

If he had ordered troops into DC without local request, no doubt the Dems and the media would now be accusing him of violating federal law and attempting to use the US military to overthrow the election.

peace to you