Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

That doesn't bear imagining, plus two secret service details [Trump's and Pence's] crossing paths in the midst of the Capitol Police efforts to bring order and safety back to the legitimate occupants and staffers, with Trump in his mob-assisted ascendency. Pelosi was also on the vocal death-threat list of his mob.

The White House issued condolences to the families of those who died in the Capitol that day, not Trump. Mike Pence also sent his condolences to the families.

If it comes down to the wire and the Republicans have people in place to falsify the results of State elections does the country have the tools to prevent that outcome?

Would it be martial law until such time as the elections can be guaranteed ,with politicians who are not behind new election security laws barred from running until such time as free and fair elections (and transfers of power) are secure?(maybe international observers this time)

If the next election is stolen by the kind of methods that are now being shown up in the Jan6 hearings how long would it be before democracy returns to the States?

Time to lock him up along with his buddies?

Ref the testimony given yesterday about Trump's behaviour in the vehicle taking him away from the stage after his speech to what he defined as his peace rally, it's been mentioned that it was an SUV and also the Beast. There seems to be kickback from within the Secret Service about his behaviour. I can only hope that it, like most modern vehicles, has look cameras fitted inside it for standard legal reasons and maybe for security purposes as well because of whom it carries.

Ditto, according to her testimony, twice told by Meadows, with mention of the OTR [off the record] change to the original planned and issued route instruction to the driver of the vehicle. I understood from the testimony, the original route instruction would have been made known to those who needed to know it to ensure the safety of its passenger at all times and the OTR instruction was NOT made known as widely.

In the time between Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony yesterday and today, has there been any denial or rebuttal of her statement by anyone that Trump had instructed the Secret Service to remove the metal detectors being used to detect weapons on the approach to his speech stage?

I copied this "June 28, 2022, 7:56 p.m. ET Zolan Kanno-Youngs. Asked about the claim that Trump urged the Secret Service to remove metal detectors and magnetometers, Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said, “We have never and would never take direction from a protectee to vacate those principles. We just wouldn’t do it.” from an NYT article but it is NOT a denial or rebuttal of Hutchinson's testimony as it avoids any reference to Trump by name at all issuing the detector removal instructions.

I'd imagine that to him, being president, he thought all he had to do is issue an instruction "make it so" and it would be done, regardless of the consequences. Probably a hangover from his previous occupation where he actually was the boss and didn't reckon on the invisible restraints that surround use of the presidential authority. Hopefully some-one on the committee will ask the question of the Secret Service at a hearing [in recorded private or public session] and get a full answer, not one intended to brush past an awkward question.

There's one thing I assume that the GOP political operatives [senators & congresspersons] will have learned from their Trump experience is that they will select one of their own schooled members next time, some-one who will stick to the telephone or closed GOP meeting-room for heated conversation, not a rank outsider like Trump who could run riot within the GOP again.

I am not sure as to whether or not the Democratic party ever had to sit and suffer while their own incumbent railed and attacked its senators like Trump did with the GOP and his own Attorneys General [plural] on a regular basis openly over the public media. In that regard, I expect the GOP to select a competent opponent whom the Democrats will [be able to] face up to and do deals with differently than the impossible Trump. Both parties must know that deals done differently than to the Trump rule-book are a better option for both in the long run.

I expect both parties will have their senators, congress-members and candidates take media-schooling courses and learn how to handle the internet media sources better for starters. The actual GOP party rule-book will probably change as well laying out internal punishments for people who try to ride rough-shod over others in its ranks and if one does not exist, it will probably be written for its Washington operatives across both houses so Trumpism cannot happen again.

he made one of his security detail, Tony Ornato, a deputy Chief of Staff in the white house..

Why would you assume that? The GOP have got exactly what they wanted. They only have an issue with Trump if he doesn't deliver for them. Once he continues to have support, the GOP have shown, consistently, that they have no problem with what he does or how he carries on.

The man basically led a attempted coup, which included the threat of hanging a very senior and respect elder of the GOP party. Hell, even Pence doesn't seem to have too much of an issue with that.

Re the future in the way the GOP proceeds electorally in two states, A: Florida and B: New York, can anyone familiar with the GOP scene in either/both states tell me how things are proceeding in those states GOP-wise for Don Trump senior and his family.

A: Would there be any alignment or meeting of minds between Gov De Santis and Don Jnr or other of Don Snr's kids in Florida on securing the GOP future there for both Gov De Santis and the Trumps?

B: Are Don Snr and his family totally blown out of any chance of involvement in NY GOP politics there now [even with Rudy in their background]?

I don't see the the junior Trumps losing interest in GOP politics at this stage of their life careers.

A declining of any offer of financial support for electoral success in order to make it clear the candidate was electorally honest and without ties to anyone intent on using his wealth to pursue Trump? entirely possible.

On from the USSC decision that the prior Roe V Wade ruling was wrong and set it aside as the right to abortions were not in the constitution, it interfered with matters best left to state legislators, Alabama's AG is using it to argue for a transgender medication ban as; quote. gender confirmation treatments are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions,” and therefore should be banned.

Law cases are so interlinked in the US due to how the USSC ruling in one case can then used to overturn other dis-similar cases. I looked for info on the Alabama AG's decision and was referred on to the Dobbs [a Mississippi abortion clinic] ruling on abortions in Mississippi in 2018 whereby other courts overturned state legislation. He's using the Mississippi case to affirm last weeks ruling operates as a precedent across all the US states.