I believe the dating 'error' on Trump's pledge yesterday -- to not break from the party and to support the nominee
-- was a skillfully crafted
and intentional 'error' to absolve Trump from any future fraud issues because he has every intention of breaking with republicans and splitting the
conservative vote at some point.
For anyone who wasn't paying attention yesterday, the media first released this version of the pledge -- BACKDATED to August 3, 2015
After a period of time long enough for people to start noticing and commenting on the date 'error' -- probably less than an hour -- suddenly a second
version appeared in the media that was dated in Reince Priebus' handwriting that read '9-3-2015:'
There was no explanation that the second version was a corrected version -- people just assumed it was. But I really don't think it was. I think we
had the wool pulled over our eyes and clearly BOTH Donald and Reince were in on the scam.
Here's what really happened:
I noticed in a photo that Eric Trump posted on Twitter that Donald had a SECOND BLANK PLEDGE in front of him when he signed the first one. He also had
not dated the first one, yet, even though he was holding it up and it had been signed.
Here is that photo:
Clearly, Trump intended to sign TWO pledges and so did Reince. ONE IS TRUMP'S COPY, THE OTHER BELONGS TO THE RNC.
The copy that says August 3 is TRUMP'S copy.
And he gave the RNC a copy with NO date, but Reince dated THEIR copy September 3.
Why is this a problem? Because it is a legal fabrication to backdate an event on an agreement/document/contract if it did not actually occur on that
date. However, if you are backdating an agreement pertaining to an event that did
actually occur on the earlier date listed, then you are
simply memorializing it: legally.
Yet, on August 6, Trump REFUSED to make such a pledge on LIVE television at the Republican debates.
It's all very hinky, IMO, and clearly the RNC is aware of what these pledges say and their legal significance. So, for me, this just confirms that the
RNC, DNC, and Trump are all in cahoots. (And, in my personal opinion I think together they have hatched a plan to deliver a Bernie Sanders victory,
but that's a different subject.) Trump's copy shows the one and only date he INTENDED to write. Given the RNC's blatant knowledge of the two copies
signed by BOTH parties to the agreement, it cannot be reasonably argued that the RNC is not completely IN ON whatever Trump has up his sleeve. I think
Trump is just protecting himself from any Complaints his donors might file by backdating and then DISCLOSING publicly that he backdated the
Why was disclosing the backdating necessary?
Earlier, I was reading a legal analysis on backdating documents/agreements/contracts and I found some VERY interesting takeaways that explain how
Trump has avoided any potential fraud claims from any third parties who may be affected by his backdated agreement -- namely donors who might actually
have standing to try to recoup their donations if he breaks with republicans or does not support the republican nominee, etc… Normally, any third
party affected by a backdated agreement would NOT be subject to the backdated 'effective' date, UNLESS the backdating is DISCLOSED to them.
Obviously, Trump has disclosed his intent to backdate the pledge -- these images are on his Twitter page.
Here are some SNIPs from the legal anlysis I read:
"Backdating, even in its most benign form, can potentially mislead a court or some other third party into believing a document was executed on
an earlier date. To mitigate this possibility, backdating should always be disclosed."
"By disclosing the execution date, no one privy to the document could possibly believe the document was executed on an earlier date."
AND….this is what the analysis says when the 'effective' date is different from the date that the agreement was actually signed (the execution
Backdating legal documents -- Legal Analysis
In other words. Trump just happened to do everything RIGHT to sign a non-binding agreement and cover his butt from any fraud allegations by third
parties affected by this pledge.
"When the dates do not coincide, the execution date is irrelevant to the event governed by the document."
I just don't buy that this is all so innocent and meaningless. It feels like silly games because it is.
EDIT: The fact is, this pledge is an agreement signed by two parties -- so regardless of whether it is entitled 'Pledge,' 'Agreement, or 'CONTRACT,'
it would be treated as a contract if presented to a court of law.
edit on 4-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)