Trump says it was 'my decision' to try to overturn 2020 election results | CNN Politics
Trump says it was 'my decision' to try to overturn 2020 election results | CNN Politics
Former President Donald Trump said in an interview that he received counsel from numerous people shortly after the 2020 election but that it was his decision to push the false claim he won the election and try to overturn the results.
There it is, plain as day. He literally just admitted to his crimes.
He was declaring the 2016 election as rigged too, right up until the point he "won" it.
And he called the 2016 GOP primaries rigged also when he lost one. Everything Trump loses is rigged. If he wins, but doesn't win by as much as he wanted to, then it's rigged also.
At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if he thought merely having a non-Trump name on the ballot counted as "rigging." Trump's ideal ballot would be "do you want (a) Trump for President or (b) to be imprisoned for life?"
He was still declaring it rigged afterwards. Probably just softening people up for 2020.
He is the most popular Republican candidate for a reason. They love this shit.
You can't be a republican without being some combination of stupid or evil.
And I don't just mean stupid colloquially as "people I don't like" but more specifically as "incapable of looking at facts and drawing reasonable conclusions from them."
Oh, so he confessed. Can we skip to the "lock him up" phase now?
We still need the trial, but I think he should have his bond revoked and await trial in jail.
This is America. So no. Republicans get to do what they want.
Didn't he also talk about how "all those J6 people were treated very badly" and he would "look into" pardoning Enrique Tarrio and others?
Tarrio was convicted of seditious conspiracy.
18 U.S.C. § 2384 states:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Suggesting the possibility of a pardon for someone convicted of seditious conspiracy is "giving aid or comfort to the enemies [of the US Constitution]."
Trump is ineligible to hold office, per the 14th Amendment, Section Three.
Trump's quote there happened before Tarrio's conviction, otherwise I would love for you to be right.Edit: my mistake, it did not.
Meet The Press aired less than 24 hours ago, that's where he said this.
TL;DR: Trump's quote there happened after Tarrio's conviction.
Full context:
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s talk about potential pardons because a lot of your supporters are wondering about that. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in jail. Now that you know what the sentence is, 22 years in jail, will you give him a pardon?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Are you ready?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will you give other Proud Boys a pardon?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know him. I never met him. I never heard of him until I started reading this stuff.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will you pardon him?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But I want to tell you: He and other people have been treated horribly. Antifa killed people, and those guys didn’t even get tried in many cases.
KRISTEN WELKER:
There’s no evidence Antifa was there.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They put these guys in jail for 17, 18, and 22 years. They didn’t kill anybody. Some of them never even went into the Capitol. Some of them weren’t even in D.C. And they got a 22- or a 17-year sentence. 16, 18, 15, 22.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, more than 1,000 people have been charged, Mr. President.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Yeah. 1,000 people. How many people — let me ask you this. How many people were charged for destroying Portland? How many people were charged for burning down the police precinct and the courthouse in Minneapolis?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will you give him a pardon? Will you pardon him, though? Will you pardon him?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’d certainly look at it. I’d look at that. And I’d look at all the other people that have suffered, the J6 people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President, let me ask one final question --
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
People — people that went there.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– and let’s move on to foreign policy.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
That didn’t even go into the building have suffered gravely. And you have to say one system of justice, right? You take a look at what’s gone on in Portland. They burned down the city. The city is in shambles to this day. The store owners don’t even rebuild storefronts anymore. They put up two-by-fours.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to move on to foreign policy, Mr. President.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But why do you do that?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me just ask you one more question.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Why do you give me a horrible question and then you don’t let me answer it? You’re off to a bad start, I’m telling you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President, I just — I want to make sure we get to talk about foreign policy as well.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, but I don’t mind. I have all the time in the world.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You do? Okay.
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I have all the time in the world. Why is it that the people, Antifa people, and very bad people, that burned down Portland, burned down Minneapolis, burned down so much — and New York City, what they did in New York City — and they were barely charged? And, yet, the people in Washington in some cases never even went into the building. They’ve been persecuted. They’ve been persecuted.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, the people who were charged on January 6th, some of them were charged with sedition. Some of them were charged for violating the Capitol —
**FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And we’ll take a look at everything. But many of these people have been persecuted, what they’ve done to them.**
KRISTEN WELKER:
They — your supporters? Your supporters, you’re talking about?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And they didn’t do this to the people that burned down — you take a look at Portland. It’s like a burned-down hulk of a city, including the federal courthouse.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President, if you were re-elected, would you pardon yourself?
It also says to hinder or delay, if that would be taken litteraly then most politicians would be barred from holding office.
... or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay ...
"By force" is the necessary method of hindering or delaying.
Ah yes, another fact-based hipshot from a non-lawyer. Bullseye.
I agree that he ought to be disqualified from holding office per the 14th Amendment, however I doubt it will apply.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3:
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.
I've bolded the parts which might apply to Trump.
executive or judicial officer of any State
He was an Executive, but not of any State, so he doesn't meet that condition.
officer of the United States
"Officer of the United States" has an established meaning in the constitution as, essentially, "officers appointed by the President" (with approval from the Senate).
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
If we take this list to be exhaustive, then Officers must be appointed by the President and are not elected by the public, therefore the President himself is excluded from the definition of "Officers of the United States".
The Supreme Court has followed this reasoning in the past.
United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303 (1888)
Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.
And Justice Roberts has used this reasoning more recently.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010):
The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.”
And finally
having previously taken an oath
The oath taken by those Congress and Officers of the United States (and all others listed in U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3) is a different oath to the one sworn by the President, and it may be argued that the oath U.S. Const. amend. XIV refers to is explicitly that sworn by members of Congress and other Officers, not the Presidential Oath of Office. (Although this to me is the weakest part of the arguement.)
While I completely agree that by any reasonable standard Trump ought to be disqualified from holding office per the 14th Amendment, it is unfortunately not a reasonable standard that he will be held to. It is this Supreme Court's standard.
tl;dr: 14A S3 doesn't apply to a current or former President, because that office is somehow excluded from the list of offices for which an oath must have been taken.
That is such a technical reading, and it seems ridiculous that 14A S3 was written specifically to exclude Presidents, as though they wanted to make sure that an Anti-Constitutional President could hold office again, while making sure to exclude every other single office available to be held, elected or appointed, in the entire rest of the federal government and the entirety of every state government.
And you're right, you fucker. Fuck you for making me know this. I mean that with the utmost respect.
ANTIFA SHIT MY PANTS!!!
Now that's a blast from the past. My edgy teenage nostalgia is calling.
Don't you guys know anything? Words have zero meaning anymore. From "literally" to "pov", no one really understands how to use the english language anymore. Trump is a practitioner of the "that's not what I meant" school of communication. GWB had clearer thoughts.
In all things I yearn for the past. Modern fashions seem to keep on growing more and more debased. I find that even among the splendid pieces of furniture built by our master cabinetmakers, those in the old forms are the most pleasing. And as for writing letters, surviving scraps from the past reveal how superb the phrasing used to be. The ordinary spoken language has also steadily coarsened. People used to say "raise the carriage shafts" "raise it" or "trim it."When they should say, "Let the men of the palace staff stand forth!" they say, "Torches! Let's have some light!" Instead of calling the place where the lectures on the Sutra of the Golden Light are delivered before the emperor "the Hall of the Imperial Lecture," they shorten it to "the Lecture Hal", a deplorable corruption, an old gentleman complained.
? Words have zero meaning anymore.
yeah if you're a fucking moron. the rest of us use these things to communicate for fuck's sake, don't let this idiot ruin language next.
And the word 'aesthetic' ... please add that to the list.
Unfortunately for him "that's not what I meant" is a pretty terrible legal defense since we don't need what he "meant"
If "what it sounds like to a reasonable listener" is "I did the crime, it was my decision, I'm guilty" then he's guilty.
What he meant is irrelevant.
Not sure what you mean connecting Trump to the word “literally.”
Haven't we been hearing for weeks that he was planning an "advice of counsel" defense in his criminal trials?
Fani Willis and Jack Smith will welcome this admission - and doubtless make use of it in court.
The screams you hear are emanating from his current group of lawyers, tearing their hair out and rending their garments as they are forced once more to scramble to try to do damage control in coming up with a legal strategy - and fearing for the future of their own law licenses.
I might be giving him too much credibility because it's not like Trump is a fine strategist or anything, but at this point I think he knows he's fucked in court anyway. He already lost this battle so to speak, so I doubt he'll make any sort of effort to help his own case. He'll do what he does best and stir up shit as fast as possible, making the biggest circus imaginable with whatever he can, and insulting the judges and admitting to his crimes is definitely a signature wtf play of his. Another angle is that the case is lost, he knows, and Trump never admit defeat, he'll just double down and pretend it's not a crime because he did it on purpose.
The corrupt GA GOP are going to remove Fani Willis. They've invented a committee specifically to do just that.
Jack Smith isn't going to be able to do any lasting damage. Everything about Trump is already known, and Trump's racist jug-hooting base is sticking with him. Findings in a trial will be meaningless for them.
Unless he actually gets sentenced to real prison - which he won't - nothing about this matters.
Surely at this point there aren't really any expectations of Trump's lawyers. They just have to file documents for him and tell him when to show up where. Then after a few weeks you just tag out.
This is going to help everyone around Trump walk, because they can point to him taking full accountability, Meadows Eastman, Giuliani can get out of it. And Trump himself will never see any consequences either.
RICO case in Georgia is much more difficult, which is why the GOP down there have created a committee to remove any prosecutors they want. So, that's how that will get killed off.
I know
Putin told you too. Traitor
This is why he should have get a gag order from a judge. He already is preparing his base that he will lose in court: "yes, I did it, but anyone would do the same, because all is rigged against me"
He’s doing this to try and prove he didn’t know he lost the election.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think that will work.
I think he's said on tape that he knows he lost the election, so I'd love to see that legal defense
Did anyone watch the clip, or just reacting to the headline? Immediately after he said that, they return to the commentator who says there isn't much in that statement that can be used by prosecutors
I'll leave that decision up to the prosecutors.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. The exchange is:
"Were you calling the shots?"
"As to whether or not I thought the election was rigged, yeah it was my decision."Trump is being charged with conspiracy to prevent the election results from being certified. He's not being charged with lying about election rigging. He can flat out say "yeah I knew I lost I just wanted to lie to people". He's not obligated to tell the truth and it's not why he's in legal trouble.
He would need to have said something about creating a plan to delay or prevent the certification and that lying about the election being rigged was part of that. Prosecutors claim they have this evidence anyways.
It's already been established that Donnie knew he was lying and that lying about the election was a key part of the plot to overturn the election.
So now he's admitted to ordering a key part of the plot and he doesn't have any legitimate reason to have done so.
His lawyers have to argue either that he was lying now, or that he was in control of the lies about election, but was somehow unaware of the purpose for lying.
twisty never even mentioned that part. The reason the commentator said what they did because Trump didn't say thing thing the headline said he did. If he did, people would be right to point out that admitting to the crime is probably important in trying to prove he did the crime to a legal standard.
Well damn, you're right. Not much meat on that bone, changes nothing. I was so hoping he really fucked up this time, laid down something the prosecution could bite on.
"Did you decide the election was rigged? Ultimately, were you the sole arbiter of that decision?"
"Yes."
And like the man said, if Trump was dumb enough to blame his lawyers, he'd open up a 50-gallon drum of evidence against him.
Cannot wrap my head around how obviously stupid this man is, yet slick as hell with his non-statements. Only thing I can figure is that he's so well practiced in legal trouble that it just rolls off the tongue.
He goes onto say the prosecution can't do much with it because we've already proved Trump's centrality to January 6th and people referred to him as the boss. It's another piece of evidence that they may or may not use but don't need to prove that Trump was the one pulling the strings and making things happen. This is in direct contradiction to him saying that he just listened to his lawyers, did what they said, and thus didn't break the law.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“It was my decision, but I listened to some people,” Trump told NBC’s “Meet the Press” in an interview that aired Sunday.
“I was listening to different people, and when I added it all up, the election was rigged,” Trump told Kristen Welker in the interview, again pushing the false claim as he seeks the 2024 Republican nomination for president.
He pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and another official to “recalculate” the numbers and “find” enough votes to let him win.
The House select committee that investigated Trump’s actions in the lead-up to the January 6, 2021, insurrection argued that the evidence shows he actively worked to “transmit false Electoral College ballots to Congress and the National Archives” despite concerns among his lawyers that doing so could be unlawful.
Trump is facing four charges in Smith’s case, including obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Trump was also charged in a sweeping Georgia indictment accusing him of being the head of a “criminal enterprise” to overturn the 2020 election.
The original article contains 471 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Crimeboi, crimeboi, 'fess to the crime
Go to the prison man, do you some time
Crimeboi, crimeboi, guilty as turds
Self in-crim-i-nat-i-o is all of your wordsThank you for your confession, citizen.
Do people really not understand that this is not a confession? The cases against Trump hinge on whether he in fact did not believe there were legitimate grounds for contesting the election. I.e., he was advocating for overturning the results but didn't actually believe there were grounds to do so.
Saying "hE jUsT coNFeSsEd!1!" here is kind of a smooth brained take. He has to maintain that he really and truly believed the election results should be overturned, or he's in trouble.
What he believes in his heart has nothing to do with the crimes he's been charged with. He interfered with official processes and concocted a scheme to submit a state of false electors. Believing he was doing what was right has nothing to do with the legality of the charges.
That's actually the heart of the issue. The prosecution will have to prove that Trump either knew that he lost the election or recklessly disregarded that fact.
Here's the thing... This new admission doesn't exist in a vacuum. The prosecution have him on tape, when he didn't know he was being recorded, admitting he lost the election. Multiple times, in fact.
So that aspect of the case is open-and-shut: He knew he lost, and he said as much multiple times.
Given that context, his recent statement comes off as an attempt to walk it back, by doubling down on the insane idea that he thought he needed to overturn the election. In making that "defense," he fully admits to trying to overturn it. I fully expect the prosecution to use it as evidence that he did, in fact, commit the crime, while using the earlier recordings as context proving that he did, in fact, know he was committing a crime.
vote early vote often