A threat of violence if charged in fraud and election cases.

“If these radical, vicious racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had … in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere because our country and our elections are corrupt.” DJT

“Wrong or illegal”? Who decides what is illegal? The man who thought Pence could throw the election? And “wrong”? The man who threatened state election officials to also throw an election?

“Racist prosecutors”? No subtle dog whistles needed anymore. “European chauvinists” unite.

Our ex-president is going all in on mob violence to protect himself from the Rule of Law. “Stand by” was for real when said and real today. The GOP is censuring the wrong folks, that is pretty obvious. Exceptionalism is on the line, in my opinion.

45 thoughts on “A threat of violence if charged in fraud and election cases.

  1. C’mon, Len. You know he only misspoke.😇

    Can’t wait to hear what the apologists have to say about this.

    Also, his comments about Pence being “allowed” to overturn the election is being taken up by legislatures across the country who are attempting to pass bills allowing the legislatures to do just that. But there is “no threat” to the democratic principles this country was founded on. Hamilton is spinning, and not just on stage.

    And the right wingers, especially here, say NOTHING. And what they do say is disheartening about something that should actually unite us.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. The truly sad part is not that his devoted fans are approving this, but rather that the GOP leadership is so smitten that “legitimate political discourse” is now mob violence.

    Or tourism, “gang-men style”.

    This is analogous to an old joke about a man about to lose his right leg to gangrene, and the surgeon removes his left one. When the error is corrected, he still can’t sue because the poor patient won’t have a leg to stand on.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You just got to know that having 3 women of color in high legal positions investigating him for ANYTHING is more than he can stomach. He calls them racist. Even he must see the total irony in HIM making those comments. But, knows – maybe he doesn’t see it.

      I saw him lashing out a couple nights ago when one of the networks carried parts of that rally. These comments from him, and the very vicious manner in which he delivered them does not in any was lead me to believe he was not the leader last year on Jan. 6. So, personally, from my viewpoint, I hope these ladies nail him. He an his kids, too. They should all be in a major lockdown slammer somewhere where we’ll never have to hear from them again. Too much to ask for; I know. But, we can always hope.,

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Perhaps Guantanamo would be a good place for ISIS, Al Qaeda, Trump, Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, Bannon, Flynn, Brooks, and other enemies of the US. They can all talk about the good old days in the rabbit holes.

        Just sayin’.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. RE: “Our ex-president is going all in on mob violence to protect himself from the Rule of Law.”

    I don’t see the words, “mob violence” anywhere in Trump’s words, but I do see Trump’s words being used as an excuse to demonize political opponents. I don’t know which is worse, the stimulus or the response.


    1. 1/6 was mob violence. Perhaps “legitimate political discourse” has a new meaning.

      Calling prosecutors vicious racists who are investigating both bank fraud and election interference, felonies, is most certainly demonizing political opponents. So you are correct.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. So what is calling elected officials “vicious racists”?

          Aside from being insulting, it also appeals to a sizable core of supporters.

          Sorry, I should have asked if you agree the folks are vicious racists.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “So what is calling elected officials ‘vicious racists’?”

          I haven’t seen the context, so I don’t know. I do, however, know that it is a lousy excuse for demonizing Trump and his supporters.

          You could write an essay about everything you find objectionable in Trump’s statement without accusing him or anyone else of unprovable intentions. To my mind, you chose to violate the rule that two wrongs don’t make a right.


          1. You haven’t seen the context? It was a rally in Texas and the quote I gave is accurate.

            Are you in agreement about calling the prosecutors racist?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “I haven’t seen the context.” WTF? The ridiculousness of the apologists just seems to grow and grow with each passing day.

            “He didn’t really say that”.

            I hate to say it, but I told ya so.


  4. I see no cite so I have no way of knowing the context of that statement.

    Surely you’re not claiming that prosecutors who abuse the power of their offices should not be subject to criticism?


    1. Not at all. But they are pursuing legitimate bank fraud and election interference. There are very clear state and federal laws about both of those.

      Rule of Law and all that.

      So is that racist?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. At this point I don’t have a context.

        I know that Letitia James is trying to make an end-around on the 5th Amendment by simultaneously running a civil and a criminal investigation, and trying to compel testimony in the civil investigation that would trigger 5ht Amendment violations in the criminal investigation.

        I also know she sent emails to supporters claiming they had to donate to her campaign to prevent Trump from becoming President again. That’s an FEC violation.

        So, Rule of Law isn’t really her thing.


          1. She couldn’t do much with Trump as president. Immunity is a problem.

            So the GA case is also prosecuted by a “vicious racist”. The evidence of felonious activity to interfere in state elections and extorting officials is very strong.

            Of course, the new information about the plans to overturn the election are also damning.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. To be fair, I you deplored and despised the Democrats as much as they do, then hooking up with a demagogue no matter how odious is a small price to pay for revenge.

            Trump has massive legal problems and he knows it. I think he wants to stay out of the courts by taking to the streets.

            Ironically, most of the 2020 protests were about using the streets to get to court.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. The only context I see is Trump hoping there will be protests on his behalf if prosecutors conduct any illegal activities. Is there something more you want to point out or are you attempting to create phony parodies like you buddy Schiff?


      1. He said “wrong or illegal”.

        Who decides?

        The last time your man called on folks to come to DC and get “wild”, we had an attack with armed and armored gang members and a few thousand fans.

        He knows the cases against him are solid, but he flat out could not care less. Never has and never will, just like his whole life.

        In my opinion.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. He has never called for violence and, no, cases are far from solid. You only believe it because few radical Democrats tell you so.


    2. The “The Hill” does not provide any context either.

      Certainly not enough to know if Trump’s charge of racism is warranted or not.

      It seems that any criticism of a Black politician is seen as racist, and any criticism of a Jewish person is antisemitic, then would it not be equally reasonable for criticism of a white politician by a Black politician, especially one who has previously accused the white politician of racism, be racist?

      Or are they all equally unwarranted?


      1. Actually his name calling is just Trump at his usual. But calling for “protests” in Atlanta, NY and Washington is just like calling for his rally to pressure Pence to break the law for him. Then waiting hours to finally tell his thugs to go home.

        But we know all this. I won’t convince you that he is a danger. And I kind of knew you and Bob and John would all justify everything he says. And I was correct.

        Meanwhile, folks are getting hired by record amounts, jobs are paying better, the GDP is skyrocketing. True, inflation is a bit concerning, but nothing earth shaking. The globe is having inflation and last I checked we are still part of the world economy. And with the GOP imploding a little every day, November is looking better for Democrats.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Read more carefully.

          You haven’t provided the context for anyone, including yourself, to make a judgment either way.

          The political nature of Ms James investigation is part of that context.


          1. What about Georgia. Is she a vicious racist?

            James’ case is complicated, but GA is pretty obvious. And a felony.

            What judgement are you questioning? Calling prosecutors vicious racists or calling on mass protests in NY, Atlanta and Washington?

            You do know that there are lots of folks that have police protection and bodyguards because Trump has attacked them. Election officials, prosecutors, legislators, etc. Are you fine with that?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Again, you have not provided the context to make a judgment either way.

            You assume that if a Democrat accuses Trump of anything, he is guilty. That is no mre rational than presuming he is not.


          3. Obviously we will never agree. I feel that Trump’s speech calling for massive protests should he be charged in NY, Atlanta and/or DC coupled with his promise to pardon the 1/6 rioters is a none too subtle call for violence. Throw in Pence’s rebuke of Trump at the Federalist Society and I think we have the makings of a desperate man who is now going to rely on his base to defend him through intimidation and violence. He tried it once and no reason not to try it again.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I am absolutely amazed how brazenly BLIND the apologists are here. Context provided , but there isn’t anything there? Blaming the NY AG because she couldn’t touch him during his tenure in office? That’s not what he said? (An oldie, but a goodie).

            The willful blindness of people on this forum amazes me. And scares me. The RNC referring to protests as legitimate political discourse is fine… up until the Capitol was attacked. It went from political discourse to an attempt to overturn the results of a legitimate election.


      2. There is a difference between simple criticism and a criminal investigation.

        For one who claims to be in favor of the rule of law, you sure do have a funny way of showing it.


  5. Weird. I consulted my pocket dictionary and search the internet and just cannot find where the word “protest” is defined as mob violence. Can you point it out for me? Many thanks.


      1. Strange, I still don’t see where protest is defined as mob violence. Unless of course you are talking about radical lefties torching cities, looting, burning public property, destroying monuments, attacking citizens, kidnapping business owners, squatting, etc and calling it a “protest”. I s that what you mean??


        1. Mob violence is unacceptable. Unfortunately there isn’t a country in the world, now or in the past, that hasn’t had violent protests, particularly among their marginalized citizens.

          But there aren’t too many surviving free nations in which a sitting president encouraged a violent protest on his own government. And then offers pardons if re-elected.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Strange, he never encouraged violence and IN FACT called for peaceful patriotic protest. Read the transcript again and stop lying.


          1. “Fight like hell”, “Stand back and stand by”.

            You have a very weird definition of what constitutes a “call for violence”.

            He sat in the Oval Office, watching the violence unfold and crowed to his staff about how of those people storming the Capitol were “fighting” for him and couldn’t understand why his staffers weren’t cheering along with him.

            Truth matters. Too bad you don’t understand that what you thnk is true is a fairly substantial pile of fertilizer.

            BS back atcha, boy.


        2. The “protest” on January 6th DEVOLVED to mob violence when several hundred “protesters” violently entered the Capitol.

          Sorry, Mr. Smith, but the bullshit flag is thrown and you are covered in yellow.


          1. Does t matter what ended u p happening, Trump never called for violence, only protest. Lefties on the other hand commit massive violence and then call it a protest. The shit is on you…


          2. “Fight like hell?” Ring a bell? Or does that only mean “legitimate political discourse”? Which was true right up until the first protester became a violent trespasser.

            As far as your comment about “leftie protesters” you might want to go back and see the evidence that shows violence only broke out at those protests when right wing interlopers started it. Peaceful protests that turned violent. Seems it is ok when the protesters are doing the dirty work of attempting to overturn the results of an election.

            And his call for peace only broke online after several hours of friends and staff telling him to call off the dogs.

            He sat and watched and cheered the people “fighting for” him. Couldn’t understand why his staffers in attendance weren’t as giddy as he was about it..

            Your grass is getting awfully green with the fertilizer you spread.

            Back atcha on the BS, boy.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s