Is it a matter of 'Changing Tides'? Securing the vote in AZ.

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (50 posts)
  1. tsmog profile image85
    tsmogposted 2 months ago

    ‘Democracy is teetering’: at ground zero for Trump’s big lie in Arizona by the Guardian (Allsides rating is Lean left) published Mar 16, 2024.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … GTUS_email

    Be aware it is a 4,500 word article or 18 minute read

    "In 2020, the Republican-controlled state legislature sponsored a widely discredited “audit” of votes in Maricopa county, the largest constituency, which contain Phoenix. Republican leaders put themselves forward as fake electors in a possibly criminal attempt to flip Joe Biden’s victory in Arizona to Trump’s.

    Two years later, in the midterms, armed vigilantes dressed in tactical gear stalked drop boxes in a vain hunt for “mules” stuffing fraudulent ballots into them. Amid the furore, election officials found themselves assailed by online harassment and death threats.

    No longer faceless bureaucrats, they had become public enemy No 1.

    With the likely presidential rematch between Trump and Biden just eight months away, Fontes, as the top elections administrator, is facing a formidable challenge. He is preparing for it like the marine veteran that he is.

    The secretary of state is staging tabletop exercises in which officials wargame how to react to worst-case scenarios. What would they do if a fire broke out at the ballot-printing warehouse, or if a cargo train spilled its toxic load on to the facility storing voting equipment?

    “Tiger teams” have been assembled to be quickly dispatched across the state to fix software or other voting problems. To anticipate bad actors using artificial intelligence to create malicious deepfakes of candidates, his office has done its own AI manipulations, making videos in which individuals speak fluently in languages they do not know such as German and Mandarin. “They were very, very believable,” Fontes noted."

    There is much, much more!

    For me, it was worth the long read to grasp what is happening. It is complicated, as I see it since both sides of the coin have relevant points. However is Arizona a bell weather of what is occurring in other 'Swing States'?

    Thoughts?

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      It is what I have been saying from the outset. The Republicans are basically tyrants, trying to fool us all by it making appear that this stuff is mere political sparring between the political parties.

      Trump is the ogre in this melodrama. The idea of switching electors contrary to the popular vote count in the state of Arizona was a sinister and dirty bit of fascism on the part of GOP dominated legislatures. Now, they believe that they can usurp the will of the voting majority, from where does that tyrannical attitude derive?

      The Republican Party is a fascist cult and must be stopped. Your article is one that supports one that I have provided highlighting the conservatives basic hatred of the democratic process. Tim, I presume that you had already read it.

      These people are pigs and there needs to be a wake up call for all those that respect our democratic process and institutions.

      Trump represents the very head of the serpent. I would not vote for a Republican as a street sweeper in my community, they would just  manufacture a carpet to sweep all the dirt under.

      To win we have to separate moderate GOP and independents from the Trumper fruitcakes, examples of which were provided in the article. Let us make those distinctions loud and clear.

      1. tsmog profile image85
        tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the impassioned input, Cred. Yup, I did read it. Phew! It was definitely one cup of coffee and a couple of cigarettes I am sad to say. However, worth it to read!

        After reading the article I did a browser search on the phrase, "What states are doing to secure the elections 2024", link next to pick and choose an article of choice.
        https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … +2024#ip=1

        For personal interest I will do some more reading as the weeks pass by.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it was a long article, let me know if there is more to add.

          Another most telling article, it is a relatively short read......

          https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keeps- … 32313.html

          1. tsmog profile image85
            tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the article link! I take heed of its message resonating with similar thoughts of his rhetoric. It gives one pause.

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        "The idea of switching electors contrary to the popular vote count in the state of Arizona was a sinister and dirty bit of fascism on the part of GOP dominated legislatures."

        LOLOLOLOL  As I recall, it was liberals that in the first Trump election publicly demanded that electors all over the country ignore their duty, conscience and ethics to switch their vote to Democrat.  It is also liberals trying to change state laws so that electors are required to vote, not as the people of the state want, but as the national popular vote goes.  Not the GOP. 

        Of course, Republicans finding they are lagging in the disregard for ethics and morality quickly learn - witness the court suits and impeachment utterings against Biden(s).  It should shock no one that they also learn to prompt others to follow the liberal lead in the matter of electors.

        (It's call hypocrisy)

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          "LOLOLOLOL  As I recall, it was liberals that in the first Trump election publicly demanded that electors all over the country ignore their duty, conscience and ethics to switch their vote to Democrat.  It is also liberals trying to change state laws so that electors are required to vote, not as the people of the state want, but as the national popular vote goes.  Not the GOP." 

          You can laugh all you want, the Democrats did not DO any of the things you say the Democrats wanted to do. But the Republicans DID DO it and that is a big difference. You don't have to be blind to not see what is clearly in front of you, Wilderness.

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Is it correct that the Democrats did want electors to change their votes in 2016 as claimed? I don't remember for sure but I think Wilderness is right.

            If it is true, does it show they don't have the courage of their convictions? The Democrat push for that National Popular Vote thing also looks like an effort to circumvent the Constitution.

            You're on shaky ground on this one. Even if you are right about the Republicans it still looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              I am right, the Democrats did not break the law by changing electors, the Republicans DID that. The PUSH is not the act itself which would be unlawful under the Constitution.

              The Democrats would want a lot of things but want is not fait accompli. The ground I stand on from that aspect is quite solid.

              Yet, you could ignore all of the Trump and MAGA attempts to subvert democracy and not raise an eyebrow?

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Wait.  Republican electors violated their promise and voted Democrat?  I had gathered the opposite from your post (you did not specify, simply blaming Trump). 

                If true, then I don't understand blaming Trump for the violations.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  "Wait.  Republican electors violated their promise and voted Democrat?  I had gathered the opposite from your post (you did not specify, simply blaming Trump)."

                  In our modern political environment, Trump is always to blame. Why has he been charged with subverting the Election, you think anyone going to buy that he was not involved in orchestration of the phony elector scheme?

                  Dont go simple on me, Wilderness, electors vote unanimously for which ever candidate won the popular vote within the state. Democracy requires that there be no other choice.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    "Why has he been charged with subverting the Election,"

                    To keep him out of the upcoming election.  Pretty plain to anyone that looks at it honestly and with a question.

                    "you think anyone going to buy that he was not involved in orchestration of the phony elector scheme"

                    Only those that require proof rather than a simple statement born of hatred.  So far there has been no conviction, just lots and lots of claims from those that don't like him.

                  2. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    "Dont go simple on me, Wilderness, electors vote unanimously for which ever candidate won the popular vote within the state."

                    Go back to school.  Both Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes according to how the popular vote went.  There is nothing whatsoever in federal law requiring the entire state to vote one way.

              2. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                That's a pretty big assumption. It is also incorrect.

                GA

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              That was my point.  The pot calling the kettle black.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Yep. The contrast also shows that one side acts on their convictions and the other just talks about them. It's a recurring theme: words are more important than actions.

                *to save Cred a few quill strokes, that statement does not exonerate the Republicans nor deny the danger of them acting on their convictions—in this matter.

                GA

            3. Ken Burgess profile image75
              Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              An unprecedented move by Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes opened the way for non-citizens (legal or otherwise) to register for and cast a ballot in the 2024 election.

              The federal form asks registrants to tick the boxes affirming that they are a U.S. citizen and 18 or older, but of course that registration must then be verified by state authorities.

              If an individual submits a state registration form but his U.S. citizenship cannot be verified and he neglects to provide documented proof of citizenship, he isn’t registered at all.

              If he submits the same using a federal registration form, however, he’s registered as a “federal-only” voter entitled to vote in federal races, including the next presidential election.

              See the problem here?

              The scheme was codified into law in December, when Fontes introduced a new elections procedures manual allowing individuals who have failed to prove their U.S. citizenship to vote in federal races.

              Elon Musk brought the scandal to light in a Jan. 9 tweet that “Arizona clearly states that no proof of citizenship is required for federal elections.”

              Katie Hobbs obviously has no intention of strengthening voter ID through commonsense legislation or making elections more transparent for everyone so any efforts by the Republicans through legislation or Amendment of the State Constitution will be vetoed or delayed to the best of her ability.

              This is how I see it:

              2016 was the last election we will have in our lifetimes where an outsider, someone not chosen and/or accepted by either Party and the 'Establishment' will win a National election again.

              2024 will go much like 2020 did, with Mail in Ballots deciding swing states by the slimmest of margins, and the very progressive states going overwhelmingly to Biden (or whoever is in his place). 

              After 2024 we will have 'immigrants' legal or illegal allowed to vote in our elections.  Thanks to Biden we have well over 22 million migrants in the country, after the 2024 election there will be a 'Progressive' push to ensure they are allowed to vote come 2028.

              The difference in voting after 2024 will be akin to choosing between Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden... who ever is on the ticket, for either party, will pursue the exact same agendas going forward.

              If you hadn't been paying attention, some major changes to people's rights have been going on in the EU, Canada, Australia... these same changes will be enacted here, within the next 6 years.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Okay, you made me look . . . ;-)

                It was a shallow look but it seems the kernel of truth about the manual excerpts concerning the Federal Voter registration form could facilitate the possibility of your claim. But if so, it would be because Fontes didn't do something instead of what he did do. The rule is a decade old, Fontes didn't insert it, he simply didn't fix it.

                It does seem to be a legitimate concern (one that Voter ID laws would fix) but I don't see it as a probable problem.

                Ga

                1. Ken Burgess profile image75
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  GA,

                  There are many things that have occurred in the past few years that we never considered a "probable problem".

                  Things will continue in that direction because too many people do not really believe it will be a "probable problem".

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, because so many immigrants are looking to violate our laws to vote, and risk deportation, before gaining citizenship.  That happens so often.

          2. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Well, at least we don't know of anyone that caved to Democrat desires and violated their duty as an elector. 

            But it certainly wasn't due to lack of effort by the Democrats.  If electors violated their ethics in Arizona and voted Republican instead of Democrat that is on them - certainly no one held a gun to their head.

            Perhaps the problem is with Democrats/liberals?  They are the ones that started the idea and taught Republicans that some might be amenable to violating their ethics, and apparently they are the ones now doing it as well.

            Seems you are putting the devil's horns on the wrong people.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              But we DO KNOw many electors that caved in to Republican desires and broke the law, in a few states. IT is on the entire Republican Party for letting the  rogue electors get as far as Washington. We all know that electors cannot be unfaithful and must reflect the majority of the popular vote in the state, Civics 101, Wilderness?

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Presumably these were Democrat electors that voted Republican instead of Democrat.  How did you put it?  "The PUSH is not the act itself which would be unlawful under the Constitution.", I think.

                Though I would have to add that it isn't only the legal aspects under discussion (by me at least) - it is also the ethics.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  If I could just talk about ethics, the Republicans and conservatives could both share the space in the bottom of the toilet. The ACTION of breaking the law is unique and cannot be confused with desire or intention.

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                I'm sorry, Credence - you're losing me on this one.

                Did Democrat electors break their oath and vote Republican or did Republican electors vote Democrat?  Which group had the people foregoing their ethics and promise, Democrats or Republicans?

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  I do think that it matters whether the legislators that appointed the electors were either Democrat or Reupublican as long as the electors unanimously select the candidate that won the popular vote in the state.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    And yet you take Trump to task (again) for what happened.  This can only lead to the conclusion that it was your "partners in crime" that violated their ethics and promises as Democrats voted against the expectation (and perhaps the law).

                    Not unexpected; only conservatives have no ethics, right?  Even when pointed out you are simply side stepping and pretending it doesn't matter; that Democrats are entirely in the right even when exhorting Republicans to vote against their promise and the law. 

                    Yeah, GA had it right.  Pot/kettle all while insisting the pot is clean as the new day sunrise.

          3. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Politico --    Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump

            By KYLE CHENEY

            11/22/2016 05:09 AM EST

            At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

            The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

            Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they’re unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they’d likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.

            But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

            The underlying idea is that a mass defection of electors could provide the impetus for a wave of changes to the Electoral College.

            “I do think that a byproduct would be a serious look into Electoral College reform,” said Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector from Colorado who is spearheading the anti-Trump effort, along with Washington state elector P. Bret Chiafalo.

            “If it gets into the House, the controversy and the uncertainty that would immediately blow up into a political firestorm in the U.S. would cause enough people — my hope is — to look at the whole concept of the Electoral College,” said another elector involved in the anti-Trump planning, who declined to be identified.

            One prominent Electoral College critic says that even if Trump wins easily on Dec. 19, a small number of Republican defections could still roil the future of the institution.

            “If you could get eight or 10 Trump electors to vote for someone else ... then that would probably get people’s attention,” said George Edwards III, a political science professor and Electoral College expert at Texas A&M University. “We haven’t ever had that many faithless electors in one election.”

            Democratic elector Polly Baca (no relation to Micheal) said the Electoral College should be returned to its original conception — as laid out by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers — as a deliberative body able to exercise free choice while using popular votes only as a guide.


            “If we cannot use the Electoral College as a deliberative process ... then we ought to do away with it,” said Baca, a former co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention and former Colorado state senator.

            The 538 members who comprise the Electoral College are slated to gather in their respective state capitals on Dec. 19 to cast the formal vote for president.

            Trump won the popular vote in states making up 290 electoral votes — and he’s leading narrowly in Michigan, which carries another 16 electoral votes. If all of them vote for Trump, he’ll win 306 electoral votes, easily exceeding the 270-vote majority he needs to become president. That’s why the magic number is 37 Republican defections. Read more---
            https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ … ump-231731

            By KYLE CHENEY

            01/06/2017 01:46 PM EST
            Updated: 01/06/2017 02:20 PM EST
            House Democrats fail to muster support to challenge Trump’s Electoral College win
            https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ … nge-233294
            https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/50856218 … it-is-over

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              yes, while Democrats protested the outcome, was there any of them that dared to replaced bonified electors was fake, lying ones? Well documented, Sharlee, but wanting to do something is not the same as doing it and that is the difference which explains why Trump and so many electors that had a part of the scheme in 2021 are being charged. Could the Democrats be charged for an idea?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image75
                Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                What this all boils down to is that the system (and the billionaires and the trillion-dollar-corporations) is far more powerful and capable than the People or Trump and his dwindling number of defenders.

                What is going to be fascinating to watch, is when they are done with Trump, and have secured their control, how quickly they will strip everything from Musk afterwards.

                They will divest him of X (Twitter), Space X (and Starlink), Neuralink, and Tesla (xAI)... they are going to slay the Golden Goose and feed on the carcass like a pack of Hyenas.  All that cutting edge technology they will put to good use, there is no way they are going to leave it under his control or let him continue to allow harmful "hate speech" on X.

                They are going to take down Trump, then take down Musk, replace physical currency with a digital currency they control, and make being a citizen meaningless... well, not meaningless, you'll still have plenty of taxes to pay... but protections and rights will favor migrants, not citizens.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Musk is turning out to be a loathsome Trumper at the core.

                  Trump is a jerk and has always been a jerk. Compared with the introduction of Trump and his followers, I will take my chances with the system as is.. The only real plan that Trump has for anything is how he is going to change America into a police state.

                  As for the rest of your predictions, Ken, I am content to just wait and see,

    2. Ken Burgess profile image75
      Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I concur with that statement.

      2020 was followed by an even more contentious 2022.

      The complaint from 'Republicans' was that Katie Hobbs was responsible for counting the votes, validating the votes, and determining the election outcome as to who won the Governorship.

      Some were a little bit annoyed that the person responsible for 'overseeing' the election became Governor.

      Voter Discrepancies Found In The Arizona 2022 General Election
      https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/v … l-election

      Supreme Court dismisses all but one of Kari Lake’s election claims
      https://azmirror.com/2023/03/22/supreme … on-claims/

      Katie Hobbs just set Arizona’s veto record, rejecting bills on elections, vaccines and firearms
      https://azmirror.com/2023/04/18/katie-h … -firearms/

      I imagine there will be some highly animated antics ongoing in AZ in 2024.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Same annoyance the left had with Brian Kemp in Georgia in 2016 being Secretary of State and purging voter rolls prior to his election.  That annoyance was met with mockery from the right.  Funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.

  2. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Not that any of that will actually happen, but what the right is supporting is a move to a government like Russia, with a strongman leader who can suspend the rights of citizens at will to retain power for himself.

    Either they support it because they think that the strongman will not turn on them, or they have never visited Russia or North Korea to understand that the citizens there don't have many rights at all.  It's naive thinking, regardless.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Ok, time to ask --- what rights will Trump take away? Do we not still have three branches of Government?  No really, what rights do you feel Trump will usurp? 

      While the President holds significant authority, the legislative and judicial branches serve as crucial checks and balances to ensure the preservation of rights and liberties.

      However, it's important to note that your assertions about rights being taken away can be subjective and influenced by your personal political perspectives.

      Ultimately, the strength of the American system lies in its ability to engage in robust debate, hold leaders accountable through various channels, including the courts and Congress, and rely on the checks and balances inherent in its constitutional framework to safeguard fundamental rights and liberties.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        He's already openly talking about jailing people like Hutchinson and Cheney.  In Hutchinson's case, she testified truthfully, under oath, and her testimony has not been countered by the person she says told her what happened in the presidential limo.  But to Trump, that deserves jail time.

        This from the man who could appoint a sycophant to the Attorney General role, as well as fire federal attorneys at the start of a term and replace them with people willing to go after his political enemies.  We saw some of it in his first term when he replaced people who were actively investigating him such as Bharra and Comey.

        He's already responsible for appointing judges that have taken away a woman's right to body autonomy.  Something he's proudly taken credit for in recent months.

        And the leaders he fawns over have essentially stripped away the rights to a free and fair election.  Let alone that Trump has already attempted to get the legal votes of 80 million people tossed after the last election - something he is currently under indictment for.

        So, in summary, he's openly talking about taking away the liberty of his political opponents, a woman's right to body autonomy, and the right to have free and fair elections.  That's three right off the top of my head.  He's already proved that the GOP in Congress are too spineless to hold him accountable.  And with the right appointments to key positions federally and endorsements at the state level, the guardrails could fall away that would prevent the United States from becoming the next Russia.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Again we have three branches of government, Trump has no power to "jail" anyone. In the past days, he has said Chenet and Hutchinson "should be jailed"

          March 11 2024  WAPO---   Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony has been disputed by several by several.

          Cassidy Hutchinson  testimony has been disputed by several by several. " Hutchinson said she was told “Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel [an agent] and when Mr Ornato recounted the story to me, he motioned towards his clavicles”.

          House GOP report details testimony that contradicted key Jan. 6 witness
          The testimony by a Secret Service agent that was previously unreleased contradicts that of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide
          "House Republicans’ review of the House Jan. 6 committee’s work found inconsistencies between the never-released testimony of a Secret Service agent and key portions of testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and perhaps the committee’s most prominent witness.

          In explosive testimony to the House Select Jan. 6 Committee, Hutchinson said she had been told by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato that then-President Donald Trump had lunged toward his Secret Service detail leader, Bobby Engel, inside a vehicle after Trump was informed he could not accompany a crowd as it marched to the Capitol after Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021.
          But the agent who drove Trump and Engel to and from the speech disputed Hutchinson’s testimony, saying he “did not see him reach [redacted]. [President Trump] never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all,” according to a copy of the full transcript provided to The Washington Post.

          “You know, what stood out was the irritation in his voice more than — more than his physical presence, which would have been pretty obvious if he was trying to insert himself between the two front seats,” the driver added.

          The driver testified on Nov. 7, 2022 — months after Hutchinson’s blockbuster testimony — and the transcript was never publicly released due to an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security over its internal review of the transcripts, according to the 81-page report released Monday by the House Administration subcommittee on oversight. DHS only recently provided committee investigators with the redacted transcript, along with five other redacted transcripts, after the subcommittee initially demanded all transcripts be turned over last summer. The department is still reviewing six transcripts from Secret Service agents with firsthand knowledge of Jan. 6, 2021, according to the report.

          Republicans in the report underscored revisions made by Hutchinson over the course of multiple interviews she provided to the Jan. 6 panel under oath, and criticized the committee for failing to corroborate Hutchinson’s story before rushing it out to share in a public hearing. At the time, investigators on the committee were uncomfortable with the decision to go public with her testimony, The Post previously reported, with one person involved with the investigation calling the airing of the story of Trump lunging at a Secret Service agent an “unforced error” that detracted from the bigger picture.

          A lawyer for Hutchinson defended her in a letter to the subcommittee, saying she had previously explained the changes to her testimony under oath. Hutchinson described “the pressure she faced, including how her prior Trump-funded counsel advised her to be ‘loyal’ to the ‘boss,’ and that Mr. Trump regularly received reports of testimony,” according to the letter.

          Other unreleased testimony provided by four White House employees, and reviewed by the oversight subcommittee, also did not corroborate claims made by Hutchinson about Trump lunging for the steering wheel after his speech at the Ellipse, according to the report released Monday.

          One White House employee testified that Ornato described Trump’s mood after the speech as “irate,” according to the subcommittee’s report. Republicans concluded that it was “highly improbable" that staffers “would have heard about the President’s mood in the SUV following his speech at the Ellipse but not heard the sensational story” that Hutchinson claimed Ornato told her. The report accused the Jan. 6 committee of selectively citing and repressing full testimony that contradicts claims made in the committee’s final report.

          “Many of these White House and USSS employees were either with President Trump or aware of his actions on January 6, yet none of their witness transcripts were archived with the House Clerk or provided to the Subcommittee,” investigators wrote. “Notably, the Select Committee published over 200 transcripts online, but did not publish these select transcripts.”

          The letter also noted that the Jan. 6 committee’s report “identifies multiple witnesses” who described Trump as “irritated” and “furious” while in the vehicle after his speech at the Ellipse. But the letter does not offer any more information about Hutchinson’s testimony about the alleged lunge.

          The Jan. 6 committee, impaneled by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), had been tasked with investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters. But when Republicans took over the House majority in 2023, they opened an investigation into the committee’s work, lambasting it as a partisan effort."  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … testimony/

          It appears Trump has spoken up and asked --- "Former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney has shrugged off Donald Trump's suggestion on social media that she and other members of the bipartisan House committee that investigated Jan. 6 should be jailed.

          The former president attacked Cheney and the others on social media this week. He also questioned whether Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, would be "prosecuted" because part of her testimony to the committee changed over time and been disputed." ABC   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-l … =108257827

          An incoming president has every right (and most do) to replace his choice AG, as well as well as federal Attorneys.  (just as Biden did almost on day one) https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/0 … oms-467821

          "And the leaders he fawns over have essentially stripped away the rights to a free and fair election.  "    -  Trump cannot change election laws, presidents do not have that power...

          Trump was very hard on Russia regarding sanctions.

          You have not offered one actual right that Trump did or intends has take away or could take away.   You are speculating on what you think Trump will do. But keep in mind we have three branches of government and laws.
          There is no chance our Government would support any form of dictatorship.

          Trump has not deprived any Americans of their rights, and in reality, has no real power to do so.

          1. Willowarbor profile image61
            Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            "Trump was very hard on Russia regarding sanctions."

            He was tepid at best and forced by Congress.

            "President Trump won't be implementing Russia sanctions that Congress basically forced him to sign into law this year. It's unclear whether Trump is breaking the law in his decision, but legal experts say he'll probably never have to implement them if he doesn't want to. "

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … -about-it/

            "The Trump administration informed lawmakers Monday that new Russia sanctions called for in a bipartisan bill passed last year are not necessary yet because the measure is already “serving as a deterrent.”

            The announcement came as lawmakers in both parties nudged the administration to implement sanctions legislation that passed overwhelmingly in July —"

            https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/ … ess-376813

            "Even as President Donald Trump signed a bill Wednesday imposing tough sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 election, he called the law “seriously flawed” and said parts limiting his power to lift the penalties were unconstitutional."

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/president- … 1501685839

            "The Trump administration shocked Washington when it refused to implement new, legally mandated sanctions against Russia in January."

            https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/01/tr … ed-states/

            "The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to block the Trump administration from lifting sanctions on a Russian oligarch with deep ties to Vladimir Putin."

            https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ … ns-1108939

            "Days before his inauguration, Trump told The Wall Street Journal that he was open to lifting sanctions on Russia. He said: "If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?"

            "Trump privately complained about US sanctions intended to punish Russia after one of its ex-spies was poisoned in the United Kingdom, according to Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton. The US and UK blamed Russia for trying to assassinate the defector, Sergei Skripal. After the sanctions were announced in August 2018, Trump tried to rescind them and said the US was "being too tough on Putin," according to Bolton's memoir.

            "During a January 2019 Cabinet meeting, Trump defended the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. He said the Soviet Union "was right" to invade in 1979 because "terrorists were going into Russia." The comments puzzled many observers, who noted that the Soviets had invaded to bolster a communist government and the US had backed Afghan militants who fought the Soviets."

            As I stated to Ken. Trump and his team  slow-walked, pushed back against, and undercut efforts to counter Russian aggression. They sought to block and then water down sanctions on Russia and to remove sanctions related to Russia’s assault on Ukraine.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              An Article on the current administration sanctions poses the question are they working.  https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai … e4f93411d3

              I want to highlight that during the early months of Trump's presidency, his administration took its time in deliberating proposed sanctions, as evidenced in your 2017 article. By 2018, it was evident that Trump was closely monitoring Russia, with frequent additions to relevant sanctions, including those aiding Ukraine. In my opinion, Trump exhibited strength in his foreign policy approach. He often utilized the tactic of issuing threats initially, which seemed to yield results in certain cases. Importantly, there were no new conflicts initiated under Trump's tenure. I view this as a significant positive aspect of his foreign affairs record. Presently, it appears that aggressive leaders are capitalizing on what they perceive as a weakness in the Biden administration, potentially leading to heightened tensions and a risk of conflict.
               
              Source on all of Trump's sanctions regarding Russia.  https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-t … on-russia/

              Trump certainly had his own ideas about dealing with foreign affairs which seem to have worked well for his years in office.  I look to the past, the Trump years.  I felt very secure under his leadership. I can no longer say that. One can never speculate on what's to come.  But one can relate to the past, as I do when considering a president's record and job performance.  Biden is building up a past that has shown me he cannot lead our Nation.

              1. Willowarbor profile image61
                Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Trump came into office with talk of easing sanctions on Russia placed by obama. He then dragged his feet on implementing additional sanctions until Congress had enough of his soft stance.

                "It’s official: Congress has handcuffed Donald Trump on Russia."

                "On Wednesday morning, President Trump grudgingly signed a bill into law that imposes new sanctions on Russia and sharply limits his ability to lift them. Since the bill sailed through Congress with a veto-proof majority, his only options were to sign it or to veto it and then endure the humiliation of seeing Congress — controlled by his own party — override him with ease, as lawmakers in both parties pledged to do."

                "The bill is a major blow to Trump’s agenda to warm relations with Moscow, and demonstrates that even in a time of partisan rancor and near-total legislative dysfunction, both parties can agree that Trump simply can’t be trusted to deal with Russia without their input."

                It was overwhelming...

                "Last week, sanctions legislation targeting Russia soared through the Senate by a margin of 98-2, just days after it coasted through the House of Representatives 419-3."

                The the facts do not support in any manner that Trump was tough on Russia.  Actually just the opposite. He did not want to impose sanctions and when forced wanted to loosen them.

                The views on the rest of his foreign policy?  I think many believe that he torpedoed our international standing. North Korea added to its nuclear stockpile and built more and better missiles despite Trump’s personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un. Iran reduced the time it would need to develop nuclear weapons following the Trump administration’s unilateral exit from the 2015 nuclear pact.  Russia, Syria, and Iran increased their influence across the Middle East after America withdrew troops and support for local partners. A huge trade war blunder with China.. that sealed our soybean farmers fate. 

                WSJ... Trump Foreign Policy 2.0: Fewer Allies, Less Trade, More Loyalists. A new trade war with China, weakened alliances in Europe—and more praise to and from authoritarian leaders.  Sound good to anyone?

                https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tru … s-ac2429d0

                https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … tions-veto

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  "Slow Boil
                  There has been secular growth in North Korean provocations and missile testing over the past four U.S. administrations (see Figure 1). These have accelerated further over the past three years, representing a 112 percent increase of North Korean testing over the previous U.S. and South Korean administrations (see Figure 2)."  https://www.csis.org/analysis/slow-boil … -dprk-2024

                  Please check Figure 2. North Korean Provocations under Biden and Trump.  "There have been 99 North Korean provocations (thus far) during the Biden presidency, outpacing the 41 North Korean provocations during the Trump administration."

                  "The higher volume of testing over the past three years is due to a number of factors. One reason could be scientific and related to development and perfecting of weapons systems. That is, North Korea has an accelerated program of experimental testing for each class of missile it is developing—the latest instance being the January 14 test of an alleged intermediate range ballistic missile with a hypersonic warhead vehicle. A second cause for the frequency of demonstrations could be related not to developmental testing but to operational exercising of the short- and longer-range missile capabilities. We have seen North Korea carry out, for example, a series of short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) and medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) launches, in conjunction with bomber runs. This is not experimental testing—rather, it is exercising of war plans. A third reason could be related to diplomacy (or lack thereof). A study by CSIS found that periods of sustained U.S.-Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) bilateral diplomacy coincide with a relatively lower number of provocations compared with periods when diplomacy is absent. "

                  All has gotten far worse under Biden. He has completely ignored the growing crisis, as he has done with all of the problems that have occurred under his watch.

                  When it comes to Trump's delay in signing off on sanctions in 2017, it's worth noting that he exercised his authority in doing so. Throughout the rest of his term, he indeed imposed numerous sanctions and issued verbal threats. As for the sanctions imposed by Biden on Russia, some argue that they have not been effective. It's essential to consider various perspectives on this matter. N. Korea has become much more of a threat under Biden as statistics show.

  3. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    All of that bluster that you posted does not answer one simple question - Ornato may dispute the events, but someone needed to ask him if he told Hutchinson what she claims he told her.  Until that is answered, her testimony is still valid.

    Next: "And the leaders he fawns over have essentially stripped away the rights to a free and fair election.  "    -  Trump cannot change election laws, presidents do not have that power...
    No, but they do have the power to endorse sycophants at the state level in key positions like Secretary of State.  We have seen many elections officials buy into Trump's lies and commit crimes to try and steal an election, such as Cathy Latham in Georgia.

    'Trump was very hard on Russia regarding sanctions.'  What the heck does that have to do with anything?  It's like you cannot understand the point of why Trump fawns over these people.  My point is that Trump fawns over these dictators because he admires the way they govern, as authoritarians.

    'You have not offered one actual right that Trump did or intends has take away or could take away.'  BS, you just cannot acknowledge the facts of what Trump has done.  I supplied two - a woman right to body autonomy and Trump's attempt to invalidate 80 million people's right to their vote.

    'You are speculating on what you think Trump will do. But keep in mind we have three branches of government and laws.  There is no chance our Government would support any form of dictatorship.'  There is absolutely some speculation based on the dictators he claims to admire.  And when presidents get to appoint judges and the way Trump endorses candidates for Congress and directs his base to vote for them, he has more power than you care to admit over the other branches of government. 

    And many of our laws do not apply to a sitting president who has power over the Senate, as we saw from Trump's two previous impeachments.  Many admitted his guilt and still voted against conviction.  In his first term, Trump committed business fraud (named an unindicted co-conspirator in that conviction), Obstruction of Justice (Mueller), blackmail (1st impeachment), election tampering (Georgia and DC indictments), and incited a domestic terror attack on his own Congress (2nd impeachment).  It was also proven, beyond a doubt, that his campaign chairman was colluding with Russia to help get him elected in 2016.

    We have laws, but laws that Trump has broken in many instances.  Once elected, a president has many protections from accountability of those laws.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Val's second-hand testimony should have undergone thorough vetting before she presented it to millions on TV. Now, it's been discredited, revealing significant flaws in the committee's process. I won't directly accuse her of dishonesty, but I strongly believe that both agents involved should have been brought forward to provide firsthand testimony at the hearing. It's crucial to hear from both sides to get a complete picture of this story.

      The agents who were present in the car should have been called as witnesses to either corroborate or refute her testimony, with firsthand testimony. The hearing lacked balance, presenting only one side of the story without any form of defense. The testimony appeared hand-picked and now with this new information, it seems to be unvetted.

      It's clear that we have contrasting views on what constitutes a fair hearing. Let's agree to disagree on this matter. I have no desire to engage in further argument over this new revelation. In my opinion, this latest information speaks for itself.

      I personally find myself too discerning to entertain any Trump-related conspiracy theories, particularly those involving exaggerated predictions. While I acknowledge that others may hold such beliefs, I prefer not to engage with them. In my view, this type of thinking is, for lack of a better term, peculiar.

      In the end, the election will provide us with a president. That president will be just one branch, and the other two have every ability to keep any president in check.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        'In my opinion, this latest information speaks for itself.'  And in mine, there's still an unanswered question of whether Ornato told Hutchinson what he told her.  Hutchinson's account was clearly labelled as second-hand knowledge, but it wasn't pertaining to any crimes, so it's actually much-ado about nothing in the big scheme of things.

        As for speculating about how Trump will govern in a second term, it's hardly conspiracy theories.  He tells us all the time what he plans to do.  There's nothing peculiar about believing him, or understanding which leaders he admires as role models and how Unamerican their governing style actually is.  Trump trampled so many norms in his first term and committed so many crimes that many of the people that were working for him clearly see him as a threat to the country.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)