Members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have warned America for three years to take former President Donald Trump at his word.
Now, as Trump is poised to win the Republican presidential nomination, his criminal trials face delays that could stall them past Election Day, and his rhetoric grows increasingly authoritarian, some of those lawmakers find themselves following their own advice.
In mid-March, Trump said on social media that the committee members should be jailed. In December he vowed to be a dictator on “day one.” In August, he said he would “have no choice” but to lock up his political opponents.
“If he intends to eliminate our constitutional system and start arresting his political enemies, I guess I would be on that list,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose). “One thing I did learn on the committee is to pay attention and listen to what Trump says, because he means it.”
Lofgren added that she doesn’t yet have a plan in place to thwart potential retribution by Trump. But Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who has long been a burr in Trump’s side, said he’s having “real-time conversations” with his staff about how to make sure he stays safe if Trump follows through on his threats.
“We’re taking this seriously, because we have to,” Schiff said. “We’ve seen this movie before … and how perilous it is to ignore what someone is saying when they say they want to be a dictator.”
His cult will eat that shit up, completely forgetting he promised to lock up Hillary Clinton and they all ate that up too.
Fortunately they are a minority. Unfortunately the US isn't a democracy
Yup, I highly doubt he'll actually do it. I really don't believe he actually cares that much about politics, he just wants his name repeated in every household.
That said, they are credible threats, and they should be treated as such.
He might not care about politics but I can assure you he absolutely cares about his ego, and not being humiliated in legal proceedings.
He would absolutely lock someone up just for revenge, to demonstrate his power, and to have them ask him for forgiveness.
IDK, I think he's a coward and a bully, and actually locking people up would be a big step for him. However, if he sees it work, he'd keep doing it.
But it doesn't matter what I think he'll actually do, what matters is whether the threat is credible.
Cowardice doesn't really work like that though.
A coward who is POTUS wouldn't be worried about locking up opponents.
One thing that has become very clear over the last several months is that Trumps only strategy to answer the many legal and criminal cases against him is to delay until he's president. This pretty much means that if he does become president, then he must remain so until he dies or else he will go to jail.
This means, if he becomes pres there need be no consideration for repercussions once he's no longer pres.
Nah, he can probably pardon himself and get away with the worst of it. The fifth amendment prevents him from being tried twice for the same crime, so he'll probably be fine.
That said, I think he's dumb or narcissistic enough to believe "his people" will keep him in office past his term. Why would they? He has, what, 10 decent years left (probably less), and they're going to all gamble their political future on promises he hasn't kept in the past?
I do think he should lose the election, and maybe go to jail (needs to go through court first), but I also think he's not as big of a threat as liberals seem to think he is. He's a buffoon, and his main downfall is that he thinks he's smarter than he is.
This is from the article.
Are you claiming to have a better understanding of trumps mode of operation than someone who was on the Jan 6 committee, studied trumps behaviour and various utterances, and had the benefit of expert opinions?
I'm claiming that Rep. Zoe Lofgren and other Democrats on the committee have a lot to gain by spreading FUD and not a lot to lose. So it makes complete sense for them to stretch the truth.
That said, their job isn't to determine whether Trump is likely to act on his threats, their job is to determine whether those threats represent s violation of the law and whether he violated the Constitution (and other applicable federal laws) on Jan 6. Whether he'd actually act on his threats is irrelevant.
I think there's enough there to make a very strong case against Trump without getting into theatrics.