It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Happens if Trump Won't Step Down?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   


That’s when I began to wonder if he was using the tweet as he seems to use many tweets: to test out new lines and see if he can get away with them. And this notion that there might be foreign election interference in favor of the Democrats seemed to test Trump’s ability to call into question election results he didn’t like. So, if the Dems won big in a way that embarrassed Trump, he might say the results were inflated—and, at least conceivably, even contest them.


Full Article Title:
What Happens if Trump Won’t Step Down? National security expert Josh Geltzer on why we should be prepared for the worst.

I know, I know, Slate, clickbait, etc... I'd also like to say that Mr. Geltzer isn't even saying that Trump wouldn't step down if defeated, he's merely suggesting measures that could be taken to ensure that he does. Which is fine. The thing that struck me about this article is how tone deaf the article as a whole seems to be. First some background, then permit me to demonstrate:




In February, Georgetown Law professor Josh Geltzer began to ponder aloud what would happen if President Donald Trump refused to leave office were he to be defeated in 2020. It sounded far-fetched, but Geltzer isn’t a conspiracy theorist. Actually, he served as senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council and, prior to that, as deputy legal adviser to the NSC and counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security.


So what is the National Security Council[NSC]? Established by the National Security Act of 1947,



The National Security Council (NSC) is the President's principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under President Truman, the Council's function has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the President's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.
whitehouse.gov/nsc



Geltzer served from 2015 to 2017 as Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council staff, having served previously as Deputy Legal Advisor to the National Security Council and as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a law clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and, before that, as a law clerk to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
georgetown.edu

Perhaps better internet sleuths than I can determine when in 2017 he left the NSC. I suspect February-ish. Also to note is his service to the 9th circuit as a law clerk. So, basically, a shoe-in for the previous administration. Okay, back to the article:



When Michael Cohen warned in his March testimony before Congress, “given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 there will never be a peaceful transition of power,” he too was met with awkward silence.


Yeah, Cohen, that guy sure demonstrates sound forethought. Wasn't he the one that paid of Stormy, the lady that later recanted, sort of:


(The Washington Post had confirmed the authenticity of the signed statement with Daniels's representative, Gina Rodriguez, earlier in the evening. Reached after the Kimmel interview aired, Rodriquez noted that Daniels had "not answered any of the questions directly" and that the porn star had definitely signed the document that afternoon in front of her and Daniels's lawyer.)


Finally we can get to the interview:


It was, of course, the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia had intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Trump against the Democratic candidate, among other goals.


Of course, all 17 agencies, right Josh? An opportunity missed to slip that one in, if I ever saw one. These other goals, Josh, these other goals, they wouldn't happen to be to simply call into question the results of the election, no matter who won, would it Josh? Maybe to call into question the legitimacy of the President Elect, irrespective of who that might be Josh? Seems like a better strategy to me Josh, if your goal is to weaken a foreign power you divide, and only THEN conquer. But you're the former Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the NSC staff, not me. What do I know.


And that’s when I remembered his earlier refusal to commit to honoring the 2016 election results.


Nice phrasing Josh. Here's what he said, and this is your own paraphrasing:


...when asked about whether he’d honor an electoral victory by Hillary Clinton, “I will look at it at the time,” and then, “I will keep you in suspense.” Those words sent chills down my spine—truly. No one should have to be in suspense about that. Yet now, as 2020 approaches, Americans are."


Okay Josh, okay, I get that "I will look at it at the time" is technically a "refusal to commit" to honoring the 2016 election results. Really, though, it's more of a "refusal to waive" the right to a recount? I mean, the question asked by the moderator was "do you make the same commitment that you will you absolutely, sir, that you absolutely accept the result of this election." Kind of like the 2016 United States presidential election recounts? What was it that Hillary said right after this?

I'm gonna help you out, Josh. Here's my transcription excerpt from the final presidential debate in October, 2016:

cont...




posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
ETA: the link from the NYT youtube channel won't work embedded. Here's the direct link: www.youtube.com...
ETA2: okay neither will CBSN, let's try Bloomberg
ETA3: okay, maybe ATS won't let you embed a 1.5hr video. back to CBSN



Watch from 1:04:25
Transcription note: pay attention at "Clinton: Made with chinese steel"



Trump: I mean I sat in my apartment today, in a very beautiful hotel, down the street, known as T...

Clinton: Made with Chinese steel

Trump: But I will tell you, I sat there, I sat there watching ad, after ad, after ad, false ad, all paid for by your friends on Wall Street, that gave so much money because they know you're going to protect'em and frankly, uh, you shoulda changed the laws...

moderator: Mr. Trump

Trump: ...if you didn't like what I did, you should have changed the law.

moderator: Mr. Trump I wanna ask you about one last question in this topic. You have been warning at re..rallies recently that this election is rigged, and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you. Your running mate, Governer Pence, pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election. Today your daughter Ivanka said the same thing. I want to ask you here on this stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election.

Trump: I will look at it at the time. I'm not lookin' at anything now, I'll look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I've seen, is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest, and so corrupt, and the pile-on is so amazing. Ah, the New York Times actually wrote an article about it, that they don't even care. It's so dishonest, and they poison the minds of the voters, but unfortunately for "them", I think the voters are seeing through it, I think they're gonna see it through, we'll find out on November 8th, but I think they're gonna see through it...

moderator: But, but, but sir there's a...

Trump: If you look, excuse me Chris, if you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote, millions, this isn't coming from me this is coming from Pew report and other places, millions of people that are registered...

1:03:44****weird break in the video****

Trump: ...n be registered to vote. So. Let me just give you one other thing, so I talk about the corrupt media, I talk about the millions of people, tell you one other thing. She shouldn't be allowed to run, it's cro...ah, she's, she's guilty of a very, very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run, and just in that respect I say it's rigged, because she...

moderator: But...

Trump: ...should never, Chris, she should never have been allowed to run for the Presidency, based on what she did with emails, and so many other things.

moderator: But, but sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact one of the prides of this country, is the peaceful transition of power, and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner, not saying that you're necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together, in part for the good of the country, are you saying you're not prepared, now, to commit to that principle?

Trump: What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense.

Clinton: Well Chris let me respond to that because that's... horrifying. You know every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction he claims, whatever it is, is rigged against him. Ah, the FBI conducted a year-long investigation into my emails, they concluded there was no case, he said the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus, he lost the Wisconsin primary, he said the Republican Primary was rigged against him. Then Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering, he claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. Ah, he, there was even a time when he didn't get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the Emmys were rigged against him...

Trump: ...shoulda gotten it...

moderator laughs

Clinton: ...this is a mindset, this is, this is how Donald thinks, and it's funny, but it's also really troubling.

modertor: ok

Clinton: No, that is not the way our democracy works. We've been around for two hundred and forty years, we've had free and fair elections, we've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day, when you're whining before...

moderator: Hold, hold, hold on folks...

Clinton: ...before the game is even...

moderator: Hold on folks...

Clinton: ...finished, it just shows, you, you're not up to doing the job. And let's, you know, let's be clear about what he is saying, and what that means, he is denigrating, he's talkin' down, our democracy, and I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.

Trump: I think what the FBI did and what the Department of Justice did, including meeting with her husband, the Attorney General, in the back of an airplane, on the tarmac, in Arizona, I think it's disgraceful. I think it's a disgrace...

moderator: All right...

Trump: I think we've never had a...

moderator: uh uh hold on, hold on

Trump ...situation...

moderator: ...folks.

Trump: ...so bad in this country.

moderator: This doesn't do any good for anyone. Let's please continue the debate and let's move on to the subject of foreign hotspots...

edit on 17-9-2019 by Zelun because: video embed failed from NYT channel

edit on 17-9-2019 by Zelun because: NBCN channel embed also failed

edit on 17-9-2019 by Zelun because: embed seems not to work very well for me



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Okay, we all caught up? Good, good. Now, Josh, there was an awful lot you missed between "I will look at it at the time" and "I will keep you in suspense. Did you pay attention to that part? Self admittedly you'd "pretty much forgotten Trump’s comment from the October 2016 debate" but those two snippets "snapped back in [your] mind on July 24, 2018."


The midterm elections were approaching, and President Trump tweeted that he was “very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election,” adding that the Russians “will be pushing very hard for the Democrats.”


Josh, do you think it's possible that now POTUS might be better-informed than you? I'll just leave it at that.


And there had been nothing—no intelligence community public statements, no scholarly analysis, no media reporting—suggesting that the Russians were poised to push for the Democrats in the 2018 elections. So what was Trump talking about?


Things above your pay-grade, my dude.


That’s when I began to wonder if he was using the tweet as he seems to use many tweets: to test out new lines and see if he can get away with them.


Okay, just stop. You are now doing more harm than good. You are using your reputation as a former member of the IC to speculate on what the President knows, and what his motivations might be.


And this notion that there might be foreign election interference in favor of the Democrats seemed to test Trump’s ability to call into question election results he didn’t like.


Why are you hamstringing yourself? This is the very argument used to dispute the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency. But I'm glad to see you're still an optimist, Josh:


I’m an optimistic guy, but I have to be less sanguine—because, seven months later, I haven’t seen any of these checks taking seriously this concern. In fairness, some need prompting to do so. For example, it’s the political parties that should require their electors for the Electoral College to pledge that they won’t withhold, delay, or alter their votes based on the claims or protestations of any candidate, including Trump himself.


Oh, you mean like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that:


... is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.


Oh. Oh...I see. You meant the opposite of that. The one where the results of the election are "absolutely accepted."

Josh, I think you either have a very short memory, or you never should have held the position of "Senior Director for Counterterrorism" for the NSC. Your capacity for analysis is seriously in doubt, at least for me.


+7 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Its called TDS



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
That guy may have credentials, but he is nuttier than a fruitcake. A president who does not leave when he is supposed to would be removed from the whitehouse because he is no longer the president. They would haul him straight to the nuthouse to get fixed. Trump, like past presidents, will leave if he is properly voted out. If it is not a proper election, he has the lame duck session to contest the election if it appears there is fraud involved, just like many people have done in the past in politics.


+10 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

What would this look like I wonder?

Maybe in an effort to keep power, he will hire a former spy to get fake dirt on his opponents from a foreign power

Then he will use that dirt and have his intel agencies spy on his opponents

And maybe he will leak a bunch of misleading stuff to the press about it

Oh wait, sorry!

The Dems and media have told us that is all ok!


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

What Happens if Trump Won't Step Down?


We take over and everyone has to suffer under the oppression of freedom.



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Trump is going to leave Washington faster than you can say tanning booth.

The Trump brand is exponentially worth more. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

"freedom" as in 1984 type doublespeak. Got it.



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Well, credentialed and educated, however, when you're emotionally compromised, something a lot of people aren't willing to admit through sheer pride and or ignorance, it also compromises the work. It becomes tainted, therefore politically biased and corrupt.

This article is basically anti trump pork, the author is attempting to feed the audience the impression that Trump is some despot dictator who won't give up race, the goal is to conflate both of then and present Trump as negative.

Throw in the 90% negative liberal media coverage, you got yourself a propaganda machine pushing out anti Trump soundbites 24/7.



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Immediately fire who paid you to create this thread,,they don't care for you..demand a refund!

If you made this thread on your own...how do I say it nicely..seek some assistance..



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

The question you ask doesn't apply to Trump, it applies to Obama holdovers and his entrenched moles. They lost and they have not "stepped down".

So blame Trump for what the last administration is still doing?

Same game being played since Hillary was humiliated, which also humiliated that loser Obama, I mean, what a scum sucking yellow pie slinger that guy is to keep doing this eh?



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: Zelun

Immediately fire who paid you to create this thread,,they don't care for you..demand a refund!

If you made this thread on your own...how do I say it nicely..seek some assistance..



Maybe you can help me out. How exactly would one fire their employer?



posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

"freedom" as in 1984 type doublespeak. Got it.


No. That is the current outspoken progressives.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Be smarter than them..



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

"freedom" as in 1984 type doublespeak. Got it.


That's you're definition of freedom, I tend to use the Constitution.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Well, it's straight out of Goebbel's playbook: accuse your opponent of what you are doing.

The irony is that Trump is actually going by Clinton and Obama's hero's playbook: Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." See, Alinsky, as best as I can tell, never outlined a defense against his own methods.

edit on 18-9-2019 by Zelun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

🤫




posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Biden will not beat Trump. President Trump not relinquishing his position, is something that just aint gonna happen.



posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:40 AM
link   
“If Trump won’t step down”

As if that’s even a remote possibility.

Just when I thought leftists were the most pathetic people on earth. They come out with drivel like this.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join