Posted on 12/06/2022 4:38:39 AM PST by 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.
The left is reductive regarding everything but their worldview. Even then they are similarly reductive, just less vehemently so.
There’s a little problem with this. The Constitution makes no mention of individual citizens voting in a popular election for president. The votes were duly cast by Electors, counted, and recorded, as per the Constitution.
Remember when Trump wanted some state legislatures to appoint Electors that would vote for him rather than according to the popular vote count?
Had he succeeded in getting enough Electors to win, no matter the popular vote, he would have been legally and duly elected president in accordance with the Constitution. Only he did not succeed. The votes were cast by the Electors, counted, recorded, and Biden was inaugurated. Too late now. No court is going to entertain this, nor should it.
“FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING” — United States Supreme Court (Ruling rendered in the 1878 case: United States versus Throckmorton)
* “Vitiates” in a legal context means negates, quashes, annuls, invalidates, revokes and abrogates
United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) is an 1878 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on civil procedure, specifically res judicata, in cases heard at equity. A unanimous Court affirmed an appeal of a decision by the District Court for California upholding a Mexican-era land claim, holding that collateral estoppel bars untimely motions to set aside the verdict where the purportedly fraudulent evidence has already been considered and a decision reached. In the opinion it distinguished between that kind of fraud, which it called intrinsic, and extrinsic fraud, in which deceptive actions exterior to the proceeding prevented a party, or potential party, to the action from becoming aware of the possibility they could vindicate their rights in court.
Intrinsic fraud is an intentionally false representation that goes to the heart of what a given lawsuit is about, in other words, whether fraud was used to procure the transaction. (If the transaction was fraudulent, it probably does not have the legal status of a contract.) Intrinsic fraud is distinguished from extrinsic fraud (a/k/a collateral fraud) which is a deceptive means of keeping a person from discovering and/or enforcing legal rights. It is possible to have both intrinsic and extrinsic frauds.
Ipso facto, the outcome of a POTUS election that is rife with one-sided fraud and criminality is rendered null and void. Especially any result which saw the winner attain his or her victory through fraudulent means and/or criminal conduct is automatically canceled and invalid under the law.
The same U.S. Supreme Court ruling also determined that fraud vitiates contracts. An election is essentially a binding contract between the electorate and the elected. This indispensable social contract is irreparably broken through voter fraud as the public trust is profoundly violated.
Unlawfully detained for a psych evaluation.
It's a big hole in our Founding Documents.
If only I could send a message back in time to one of our Founders.
I did what I could. I visited on Tuesdays, and put money on your Commissary books.
If you believe the military is going to step in, that’s your prerogative. I predict you and the Q crowd will be waiting and waiting and waiting ... and waiting. Wait all you like. It is not going to to happen. 2024 will roll around and Trump will lose. Yes, I’ll still vote for him, but I cannot see him winning in 2024 at this point.
PS: I prefer to see *no one* “out on the street with an AR” as you put it. See my post #53:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4114238/posts?page=53#53
I think it's because Trump proposed exactly that.
LOL! Or clickbait. Laz put it right right here FR, all original.
“FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING” — United States Supreme Court (Ruling rendered in the 1878 case: United States versus Throckmorton)
And what exactly was the result of said evaluation?
I always do. I don't want to get on the bad side of humblegunner. He's CRAZY! 🙂🙃🙂
Look at what is happening in Brazil and that is what is going to have to happen here. Trump is doing what he’s doing to show the public that our congress, justice dept and courts have been given every chance to fix this problem and they won’t do it. In the end the military is the only way.
This ain’t Brazil, in case you haven’t noticed. Who is going to call out the military? Who is CIC? Dream on.
He's just pushing the buttons of people to see what the reactions are. Mainly, he wants to see how many of his supporters would be willing to start a revolution over the 2020 election, which is data he would need to decide what he wants to do, or ask people to do, next. Who's willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, as that very well could be what a revolution results in. So he's measuring up his support, in the form of a potentially fatalistic rallying cry.
Second, he's also pushing the buttons of his opponents, to measure them up as well, in size and scope. He's forcing the issue, and making people choose a side, so that even people like me, who once supported him greatly, but had settled on being more on the fence and not supporting him for President unless he won the nomination, are starting to wonder if he should ever be President again, at all.
Why is he forcing the issue? Especially two years after the 2020 election, and even after the 2022 midterms? Likely because he is starting to see his chances in 2024 are starting to go down the tubes. Whether that is because, as his supporters would claim, we can't make it 2024 with the Democrats in control, or as his detractors would claim, he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election. Either way, his recent actions appear to indicate that he himself has possibly realized that 2024 will not be the way he becomes President again, so a rehash of 2020 is his only hope. Which could require a literal scorched Earth approach, but before embarking on that, he needs to measure everything up.
Throckmorton? A property case? You think contract law is relevant here? Sorry, it’s apples and oranges, maybe even elephants and onions. Read my post #82 again:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4114238/posts?page=82#82
Then read the Constitution again. There is no Constitutional mechanism for reinstating Trump or holding a do-over of the 2020 election at this point. Fraud or no fraud.
And that’s the rub..
It’s not really a Constitutional Republic today.
It’s a Banana Republic in need of the Declaration of Independence..
But Trump can’t go there..
Because to go there, puts the coup enablers, like Banana Republicans and the likes of Fauci on alert that some minuteman might take a shot at King Brandon’s army..
Trump has now, based on susequent comments, removed all doubt about his support for the Constitution and his opposing termination of its rules/regulations/articles.
Subsequently on Dec3, Trump posted the "unprecedented cure" comment. I am eagerly awaiting his specific comments on that topic.
The same as he never said to drink bleach during the pandemic, he never said to toss out The Constitution. It is plain as day. He’s said, nobody can deny there was fraud here that affected the outcome of the election, and he is asking—not demanding— what’s to be done about it? Hold a new election, or declare the rightful winner?
The opening few words are about the massive, widespread fraud and deception...and he later says it allows for the pitching of every aspect of rule of law... implicit is: if we as a country allow this to stand, and/or happen again.
I am thoroughly disgusted that even Fox has been engaging in the lie about this tweet. All of these news outlets think the readers/viewers are too stupid to believe their own eyes. It’s right out of Orwell, and it’s truly frightening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.