I don’t see how anyone can read what Trump posted and not see it for what it is (a call for “termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution”). Even in the case of “fraud”, as noble an intent as that may be, if successfully prosecuted, what does that achieve? A country led by a person with no historical authority. A dictator. By definition. It’s the plan reading of what he said. In my opinion at least.
I’m not here to debate this or anything today though. So you and anyone can reply as you wish. I was struck though re-reading Article 2 section 1, this stands out even more now given this topic: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
This is the duty of the president above all others. I think everyone seriously considering he “didn’t mean what it appears he said” rethink at least, that the very oath he took Jan 2017 would forbid what he’s suggesting. Even in the case of “fraud”, even if one argues the “fraud” nullified the Constitution already.
What does everyone on here stand for if not the inviolate nature of the Constitution? What does FR stand for if not that?
“Fraud”, even if it existed enough to have altered 2020, doesn’t nullify the Constitution. If it did, then any Democrat could claim there was fraud in a future election and etc. Does no one here find this slope just a bit slippery? Even if Trump is saying what so many seem to want to make him say (despite the plain reading of his words otherwise) then what’s the “game plan” here? Trump for President for life!?
When does this madness end? Sigh. Maranatha Lord, truly maybe it’ll come to that first before all this craziness from everyone stop.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. Trump could have written ...”A massive fraud of this type and magnitude ALLOWED for the termination off all rules....even those found in the Constitution.” This would have made it clear he was stating the fraud is what terminated those mentioned rules, etc. Even those in the Constitution.
The use of the future tense “Allows” shows the remedy he suggests of upending the Constitution in order that he either be declared the rightful winner or a new election held has not yet been applied. He is stating how he could become the sitting president in face of the fraud. If the solution he offers are not permitted in the Constitution than it is legit to terminate its rules. He is trying to fall back on the Founding Fathers by suggesting doing so would be o.k. because they would not condone fraudulent elections. Of course they wouldn’t.
He who saves the nation breaks no law - Bonaparte
Ridiculous. The constitution assumes elections are not fraudulent. If fraud in uncovered that election is void. That’s precisely what the president said.
That all of the processes regarding that election, even constitutional ones, are void.