Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[dirtywick]

The significance of the powerpoint as it applies to Jan 6 isn't that it was or wasn't followed, which it mostly wasn't due to a variety of reasons in my opinion. It's to demonstrate that there were actual, serious discussions about retaining power beyond the election despite the loss.

-edit-

As it applies to this discussion, it's just another piece of evidence that the Jan 6 speech and events leading up to it weren't some off the cuff riffing that led to a riot that couldn't be predicted as much as it was a desperate but deliberate last attempt to retain power. Preventing the certification was the most vital part of the plan at the time since the window to retain the presidency effectively closed once it was certified.

 

[johnny karate]

Okay, no coup.

Just a plan to attempt a coup if a set of favourable circumstances were to arise.

Much better.

Addendum: That came perilously close to working.

 

[dirtywick]

Addendum: That came perilously close to working.

I agree, and although I do think it was a crazy plan hatched by a bunch of crackpots, I don't think it's as crazy as it seems. Everyone who doesn't own a pillow company knew that if the certification is completed on time, there's very little chance that he gets the presidency back later. If on midnight Jan 6 the certification isn't complete, I think they liked those odds a lot better.

 

[Upchurch]

I agree, and although I do think it was a crazy plan hatched by a bunch of crackpots, I don't think it's as crazy as it seems. Everyone who doesn't own a pillow company knew that if the certification is completed on time, there's very little chance that he gets the presidency back later. If on midnight Jan 6 the certification isn't complete, I think they liked those odds a lot better.

Even more so if they had more time to convince a few states to decertify their elections or send an alternate slate of electors.

It shouldn't work, but I think the hallmark of the Trump administration is that it isn't illegal if nobody holds you accountable.

 

[Warp12]

On a serious note..

If this PowerPoint is such a smoking gun, what charges are we expecting for Trump?

It is his "coup", after all.

 

[Thermal]

Okay, let's be honest. By your own source, why wasn't it attempted? Hint: it wasn't because they didn't plan to.

The Guardian says that Pence et al refused to go along with "such plans", which they link to another story where Pence didn't go along with some other unspecified plan. The somewhat dishonest connection the reader is supposed to make is that this PowerPoint and those plans were the same thing, although that was by no means known. Why do you ask? Please don't tell me you were duped by the allusion, rather than the actual reporting? Then again, you were fooled by the article title so I dunno.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, I believe talking about it gets 'conspiracy to' added to the beginning of the charge sheet.

I think that's pretty well established in law.

"Conspiracy to talk about yet not attempt" is a unique legal theory you have there.

 

[Upchurch]

The Guardian says that Pence et al refused to go along with "such plans", which they link to another story where Pence didn't go along with some other unspecified plan. The somewhat dishonest connection the reader is supposed to make is that this PowerPoint and those plans were the same thing, although that was by no means known.

You are very critical of your own source, which is generally considered reputable. It's almost like you are picking and choosing which facts you accept and which you reject from your own source. I believe there is a term for that...

Do you accept the validity of your source or don't you?

But, yes, Pence did refuse to go through with Trump & Co's plans. Which, if you read your own source, sent them looking for other plans. That's a lot of plans to pretend didn't exist and a lot of concern for a rejected plan they never intended to use.

Your argument in this thread is mess. There is no shame in being wrong. It's not okay to stick to your guns in the face of contrary evidence, especially evidence that you provided.

ETA: I'm trying to remember if I've ever been chided for accepting a source that the chider provided.

 

[Thermal]

On a serious note..

If this PowerPoint is such a smoking gun, what charges are we expecting for Trump?

It is his "coup", after all.

If a word of these exciting and swooning conspiracy theories was actually demonstrable, Trump and many others would be in Leavenworth right ******* now.

We've really got to tip the DOJ off to our in-house Super sleuths.

C'mon Upchurch! Hey Johnny karate! Show those knuckleheads in DC how evidence works.

 

[johnny karate]

The Guardian says that Pence et al refused to go along with "such plans", which they link to another story where Pence didn't go along with some other unspecified plan. The somewhat dishonest connection the reader is supposed to make is that this PowerPoint and those plans were the same thing, although that was by no means known. Why do you ask? Please don't tell me you were duped by the allusion, rather than the actual reporting? Then again, you were fooled by the article title so I dunno.

I'm not sure how pointing out that there were multiple plans for the coup means there was no coup attempt.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not sure how pointing out that there were multiple plans for the coup means there was no coup attempt.

Talk to a kindergarten teacher about the difference between a lot of nitwits talking about different plans, none of which got off the chit-chat stage, and attempting to execute any one of them. Ask her to use crayons.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not sure how pointing out that there were multiple plans for the coup means there was no coup attempt.

I'm not sure how multiple plans to stage a coup means that there were no plans to stage a coup.

 

[Upchurch]

Talk to a kindergarten teacher about the difference between a lot of nitwits talking about different and, none of which got off the chit-chat stage, and attempting to execute any one of them. Ask her to use crayons.

If I understand your incomplete sentence fragments correctly, you seem to be ignoring that they actually attempted to implement the ppt plan, but Pence, in a single moment of clarity, refused. You are also ignoring that the Guardian reported that Trump responded by having his advisors compensate with new options.

 

[johnny karate]

If a word of these exciting and swooning conspiracy theories was actually demonstrable, Trump and many others would be in Leavenworth right ******* now.

We've really got to tip the DOJ off to our in-house Super sleuths.

C'mon Upchurch! Hey Johnny karate! Show those knuckleheads in DC how evidence works.

This unearned authoritative confidence brought to you by someone who predicted that the insurrectionists would be "swept into inconsequence by Capitol Security" shortly before the insurrectionists overran security and occupied the Capitol for several hours.

I have to begrudgingly respect someone who doesn't let being constantly wrong stop them from insisting that they know everything.

 

[johnny karate]

Talk to a kindergarten teacher about the difference between a lot of nitwits talking about different plans, none of which got off the chit-chat stage, and attempting to execute any one of them. Ask her to use crayons.

Just got off the phone with her. She said anyone who thinks that the planning leading up to January 6th wasn't part of an attempted coup will probably eat the crayons she would use to show them they're wrong.

 

[Thermal]

You are very critical of your own source, which is generally considered reputable. It's almost like you are picking and choosing which facts you accept and which you reject from your own source. I believe there is a term for that...

Do you accept the validity of your source or don't you?

Ya know, there's a school.of thought that recommends one be critical of anything they read. Cray-cray, I know.

I find the Guardian to be consistently reliable. Their reporting is a little left leaning, by American standards, but very solid. One just has to do what you refuse to do: read critically. Always.

But, yes, Pence did refuse to go through with Trump & Co's plans. Which, if you read your own source, sent them looking for other plans. That's a lot of plans to pretend didn't exist and a lot of concern for a rejected plan they never intended to use.

You're weaseling again. We were talking about the PowerPoint. In fact, that's why I popped back in the thread. I read about it, and thought "whaddaya bet a couple of the boneheads here in /pol are reading it uncritically and fueling their conspiracy theories with it?" Y'all didn't disappoint.

Your argument in this thread is mess. There is no shame in being wrong. It's not okay to stick to your guns in the face of contrary evidence, especially evidence that you provided.

I accept the reporting as factual. I reject the allusions and mind-reading.

ETA: I'm trying to remember if I've ever been chided for accepting a source that the chider provided.

Pretty sure you wouldn't realize you were accepting a narrative that wasn't actually being factually reported.

 

[Upchurch]

You're weaseling again. We were talking about the PowerPoint.

Which contained a few different variant plans, as reported, that were dependent on Pence's cooperation. The fact that Pence had to refuse indicates that they were intending to implement at least one of those variants.

If you accept the article, these facts are not in question. Correct?

 

[Thermal]

Which contained a few different variant plans, as reported, that were dependent on Pence's cooperation. The fact that Pence had to refuse indicates that they were intending to implement at least one of those variants.

If you accept the article, these facts are not in question. Correct?

No. Read the article more carefully. Critically, if you will. At no point does it say that any of the PowerPoint plans were presented to Pence. Nor that they were presented to Trump, for that matter. We absolutely have no idea who exactly saw the PowerPoint plans, beyond "LOL luv it" Meadows. We believe something was rejected by da VP, but not anything from the PowerPoint. Agree or nah?

 

[johnny karate]

No. Read the article more carefully. Critically, if you will. At no point does it say that any of the PowerPoint plans were presented to Pence. Nor that they were presented to Trump, for that matter. We absolutely have no idea who exactly saw the PowerPoint plans, beyond "LOL luv it" Meadows. We believe something was rejected by da VP, but not anything from the PowerPoint. Agree or nah?

Agreeing for the sake of argument, how does any of that mean the PowerPoint wasn’t part of an attempted coup?

 

[Upchurch]

No. Read the article more carefully. Critically, if you will. At no point does it say that any of the PowerPoint plans were presented to Pence.

That is incorrect. As a reminder:

The Guardian revealed last week that sometime between the late evening of 5 January and the early hours of 6 January, after Pence declined to go ahead with such plans,

"Such plans" refers to plans akin to what was in the ppt file. Meaning that one or more of the plans were presented to Pence even if he never laid on the eyes on a particular file, or even that version of the file. Unless you would care to argue that Pence declined a plan that he was not presented, Pence was presented "such plans".

We believe something was rejected by da VP, but not anything from the PowerPoint. Agree or nah?

We do not know that Pence saw this file, but it is reported that he declined the plans it contained. The important part is that the plan for the coup was created and it was seriously communicated to someone who had the capacity to enact at least part of it. As reported, Trump "then pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place entirely" in reaction to Pence's rejection of that first plan.

All of this is being reported as fact.