Trump In A China Shop: The Two Interpretations Of His Statement

Original Content | 12/6/2022 | By Laz A. Mataz

[Lazamataz]

Recently, our beloved president, Donald Trump, posted this on TruthSocial:

In it, is a statement that could be interpreted one of two ways. One interpretation was sinister: ("I'd dismiss the Constitution and just become president, if I could")

The other interpretation was not only constructive, but very accurate: ("Fraus Omnia Vitiat... Fraud vitiates everything. The orchestrated fraud of Democrats in 2020, are such that all rules -- even the Constitution -- has been destroyed by them.")

Many people on our side immediately saw that he was trying to express the second interpretation. However, the left immediately jumped on the first interpretation and began excoriating him for it.

Even I, at the first glance at his post, was alarmed. Briefly after, though, I saw what he really meant. Then it occured to me that there were two possible interpretations. Why should it be possible to have two interpretations of his statement?

The leftist media will take his statement and feed it to the masses of leftist zombies, further cementing in their mind that a re-elected Trump would be a tyrant, and that January 6th was an actual attempt to execute a coup. People who feel that way are extremely dangerous, and will commit acts of violence to stop a 'coup' or a 'tyrant'.

Why should he have given our political enemies any ammunition at all? Couldn't he have been more clear, and thus removed any chance to be misinterpreted?

There is another poster here, AnotherUnixGeek who put it really well: The words of most politicians are far better than their actions. Trump is the opposite - his actions as president were overwhelmingly positive and good for the United States, while the stuff that comes out of his mouth and out of his typing fingers can be cringe-inducing.

I love President Trump's actions as president! He was amazing in just about every way, doing so well that I feel his performance exceeded Ronald Reagans.

What we loved about Donald Trump in 2016, was his bold and combative style. He took it right to the Enemedia. He allowed NOTHING they said to go unchallenged. It was refreshing and energizing, and in the end, it made him president.

However, after six long years of the Enemedia twisting what he said -- even when he was very clear -- I would expect the man to be much more articulate and careful. I'd expect him to re-read every post, trying to predict how he'd be misquoted or misinterpreted. There is absolutely no reason he should have stepped into this one.

On the other hand, Jim Robinson had a good take on it: Trump would not be the man we all know and love if he has to run everything he says through a committee or a focus group —like RINOs do. Trump is fine. Let Trump be Trump as he fights the media and the leftists. Results are what counts.

And let's remember, one of us became President of the United States, and the other one of us (myself) is writing an editorial on Free Republic.

[luvie]

Yeah, I saw that you had posted it AFTER I posted. LOL!

[luvie]

I guess it becomes MISinterpreted when it’s taken out of context, which is what the demwits and their minions, the press, are very good at doing.

[delchiante]

You are free to vote for whatever banana republican you want to in 2024..

Just be thankful that Trump, the most aggrieved, most attacked, most deserving of justice, man in the last 6+ years, hasn’t given up hope and posted the Declaration of Independence.

Because Trump could certainly ask others to put their lives,their fortunes, and sacred honor on the line..

He’s done it..

And in the process exposed all those 20 year ago heroes like Bushes and Cheneys, etc..

RINOs and Banana Republicans hardest hit
Some of the same that have their panties in a bunch today..

[CatHerd]

Again, you are trying to apply contract law where it is not applicable. If you won’t believe those of us here on FR who have tried to explain that to you, again, please consult a Constitutional lawyer, or even one specializing in contract law. Or any lawyer. Surely you must know a lawyer, or there is one who attends your church.

The Constitution is not a contract. It simply is not. I suppose one might think of it as a sort of covenant, but that’s a real stretch. Why do you suppose Constitutional law and contract law are two separate branches? Hmm?

The Constitution gives state legislatures the power to appoint Electors. Nothing more, nothing less. Please read it. No power was usurped from the state legislatures, either.

Of course there are ways of fighting fraud through the courts, as I and others have told you. The window for doing that has closed. The state legislators duly appointed their Electors, those Electors duly cast their votes and they were duly counted. There was no fraud whatsoever in that process. Even Trump has not claimed there was. It’s done and cannot Constitutionally be undone, no matter what you wish or think or say.

[CatHerd]

Trump posted the Declaration in conjunction with this? When? Where? I don’t see it among his recent TS posts. Can you post a link to it? I’m not doubting you. I simply can’t find it on my own. I tried.

JimRob posted the Declaration here on FR. He’s a very perceptive gentleman, and saw right to the heart of Trump’s TS post on Dec. 3rd.

[taildragger]

"However, after six long years of the Enemedia twisting what he said -- even when he was very clear -- I would expect the man to be much more articulate and careful. I'd expect him to re-read every post, trying to predict how he'd be misquoted or misinterpreted. There is absolutely no reason he should have stepped into this one."

Laz,

I have been on a personal screed maybe here but amongst my friends let Melania proof read etc before you hit send.

Better yet, the most politically articulate of the Trump family IMHO is Lara Trump, Eric's wife. I like the cut of her jib as a communicator.

I prefer Lara over Melania to do it.

Just my two cents...

[CatHerd]

You have come to a correct conclusion. Well done. :)

[hcmama]

Every single word of this is true. People may not want to admit it, but in the end, they will have to face it.

Ever since 2020 Trump has looked backward and the rest of the country has moved on. For the first time, the master of branding seems like he is seriously out of step with the rest of the country. His behavior and actions challenging the 2020 results managed to be unserious and ineffective while damaging
and undermining those who faithfully supported him.

It also truly saddens me that the reaction to so many of these erratic and ham-fisted statements Trump makes follows an all-too-familiar trajectory: Initially people will try to deny the worst possible interpretation of Trump’s statements. Then they will twist themselves into a rhetorical knot to justify the completely insane stuff that he says. Later, Trump will invariably come out and state he never meant to say what he said in the first place and everyone who crawled way out on a limb to justify him has to revise and extend their original remarks.

Trump is politically toxic now. Any candidate in the recent midterms that aligned themselves closely with him underperformed. I have no doubt that many of the posters on here will sit at home rather than vote for DeSantis to be the Republican nominee. But Donald Trump will never win another national election. Honestly, I doubt he will even be able to win the Republican nomination

[delchiante]

Trump didn’t post the Declaration.

Maybe the long train of abuses isn’t long enough yet...

Trump hasn’t done that even after being robbed, raided, railroaded,by the supposed Constitutional Republic he served, without salary, for 4 years..

I would suspect that Trump’s enemies would see Trump posting the Declaration as a sign...

I would suspect that Trump’s supporters would see Trump posting the Declaration as a sign..

And at least his enemies and supporters would know what’s next..

[Candor7]

What we loved about Donald Trump in 2016, was his bold and combative style. He took it right to the Enemedia. He allowed NOTHING they said to go unchallenged. It was refreshing and energizing, and in the end, it made him president.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Amen brother~!

One more charge up that hill:

[e_castillo]

If you need to interpret his words, there is a problem.

[meyer]

I put it this way - the democRATS and RINOs have shredded the constitution. They leave the border unprotected. They send the FBI/DOJ/IRS/EPA/whoever after anybody that doesn’t agree with them and toe the line, they declare patriots as terrorists, they steal elections and refuse to even look at the enormous heap of evidence for 2020, let alone 2022.

They are not beholden to the American people any more, and thus are not our government.

[e_castillo]

Well said.

[e_castillo]

“This is the biggest rope he’s given anyone yet. Expect them to use it.”

Unfortunately true. How will the AG interpret his comments? He can’t make these mistakes going forward.

[CatHerd]

I agree that Trump has been horribly wronged, unfairly attacked in the most underhanded ways, subjected to abuses based on total lies, and on and on. This has greatly upset me and I have defended him throughout all that.

If Trump did not post the Declaration, I suppose by what you you wrote in your #143, you meant his posts were tantamount to posting the Declaration, then?

**********
From your post #143: “Because Trump could certainly ask others to put their lives,their fortunes, and sacred honor on the line..

He’s done it..”
***********

In your #149, you wrote:

************
I would suspect that Trump’s enemies would see Trump posting the Declaration as a sign...

I would suspect that Trump’s supporters would see Trump posting the Declaration as a sign..

And at least his enemies and supporters would know what’s next..
*************

I’ll tell you what would be next. The Dems would have a field day in the press saying Trump was calling for “insurrection” and “inciting violence” and is “a danger to democracy” and “encouraging sedition”. Some of his die-hard supporters would sit at their keyboards furiously typing away that he did not mean it that way. Other supporters would just wince and carry on, hoping that this, too, will pass, while still others would no longer support him. There would be no uprising. Who is fool enough to risk his life over a Trump temper tantrum? Who is going to out and fight for a Veruca Salt?

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[CatHerd]

Great posts, both of them (#115 and #148).

As for 2024, if Trump wins the nomination, I can’t see him winning the general. Not now. Who will run against Trump in the primaries and risk being so viciously attacked by him? Even if someone does run against him and somehow wins the nomination, will that someone be able to win the general after Trump is done with him? These questions trouble me.

[delchiante]

Stolen elections can be equated to Varuca Salt tantrums to some.

Some see them as actions of enemies, foreign and domestic..

But your mileage may vary.

[CatHerd]

I was not equating stolen elections to Veruca. I was equating Trump’s impossible demands to Veruca’s. Big difference.

[Robert DeLong]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. It's a contract between the 50 states that make up the United States, and the Federal Government. It defines the power that the Federal Government has, and that all not specifically mentioned in the Constitution refer back to the individual states for them to decide at the state level.

That was why Roe v Wade was overturned, thus placing the decision back upon the states, where it belonged all along, whether to legalize abortion or not.

If the U.S. Constitution were not a contract it would not take amendments to alter it.

Citizens who live within one of the 50 states, share the rights afforded to them by both the state & the U.S. constitutions.

That's one of the reasons draconian gun laws are overturned, because the U.S. constitution take precedence over the state constitution if the U.S. constitution makes specific mention as they do in the 2nd Amendment.

As for why there are Constitutional lawyers, and Contract lawyers is akin to the medical profession and the specializing in an area of medicine, only this is specialization within law. While some understand contract law as it deals with contracts between two or more people, they may not understand some of the more finite understanding & rulings regrading constitutional law, and its contractual agreements with the citizens on either the state or federal level.

Sometimes states try to overreach (misuse) laws such as eminent domain. When they do a landowner can take the state or federal government to court. How would they be able to do that if constitutions were not contracts?

Again, I will reiterate that there is no limit to rectify fraud. Show me where that limits exists. You, and others, mistakenly believe that to be the case . If an election is fraudulently certified, it is still a case of fraud.

It may make for a constitutional crisis, but there is nothing that says once an election is certified there is no remedy.

In addition, when the Supreme Court made the ruling it merely stated: “FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING”, it didn't limit that ruling to just written or verbal contracts. It included everything.