UPDATE: A CORRECTION- YOU'RE SHOCKED THAT DONALD WOULD SAY SUCH THINGS? HAVE WE ERASED THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS? PART 2.

MY APOLOGIES: MY PRESENTATION OF MODUS TOLLENS WAS INCORRECT.

IT HAS BEEN EDITED TO CORRECTLY REFLECT ITS ACTUAL STRUCTURE.

THE ACTUAL THREAT IMPLIED IN TRUMPS STATEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE,

BUT IT SHOULD BE ANALYZED CORRECTLY.

I don't understand it. If there was ever a quote indicating Donald Trumps Intent to undermind the 2020 Presidential Election, (If he lost), it was the following;

The following exchange occurred during a White House Press conference on Wednesday, Sept 24, 2020.

 “Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?” reporter Brian Karem asked Donald Trump, who didn’t even attempt to give the impression he cares whatsoever about preserving democracy. “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump said. “You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.” Pressed again to “commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power,” Trump responded, “Get rid of the ballots and...we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. You know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know better than anybody else.”

''...Pressed again to “commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power,” Trump responded, “Get rid of the ballots and...we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."

He is making an accusation of FRAUD, BEFORE THE ELECTION, ON A PROCESS HE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO CONDEMN. He is obviously setting up an excuse to explain his eventual defeat, in case that scenario came true. He did the exact same thing in 2016, to explain a potential loss to Hillary Clinton. (Unluckily for us, the fix was in, and he stole the election.)

With apologies to Doctors Hill and Barnette, (I have to play the cards I'm given), here is a very basic example of the Logical Principle being used;

MODUS PONENS.                                                                

PREMISE- IF P THEN Q.                                                       

PREMISE- P OCCURS.                                                          

CONCLUSION: Therefore, Q.

HOW TRUMP USES IT.

PREMISE: IF THE BALLOTS ARE VOIDED,

THERE WILL BE A PEACEFUL TRANSFERENCE.

PREMISE: THE BALLOTS ARE VOIDED.

THEREFORE: THERE WILL BE A PEACEFUL

TRANSFERENCE.

HOWEVER, IF Q DOES NOT OCCUR.

WE ARE LEFT WITH MODUS TOLLENS.

PREMISE: IF P THEN Q.

PREMISE: NOT Q.

CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, NOT P.

PREMISE: IF THE BALLOTS ARE VOIDED,

THERE WILL BE A PEACEFUL TRANSFERENCE.

PREMISE: THERE WAS NOT A PEACEFUL TRANSFERENCE

CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, THE BALLOTS WERE NOT VOIDED.

IN THIS CASE, TRUMP IS MAKING A THREAT THAT THERE

WILL BE NEGATIVE  CONSEQUENCES IF HE DOES NOT GET

WHAT HE WANTS.

FASCISM IN ACTION.

TRUMP HERO MICHAEL FLYNN PLEADS THE 5TH AMENDMENT. "SELF INCRIMINATION." A TRUMPIAN TRAITOR.

YOU WOULD HAVE MADE A FIRST-RATE NAZI FYNN. NO, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE CALLED "GENERAL," YOU'RE  A PATHETIC TRAITOR. GO TO PUTIN, MAYBE RUSSIA WILL MAKE YOU AN HONORARY "GENERAL."

LINK:

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1541850921029746689

Rep. Liz Cheney: Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified morally?

Michael Flynn: Fifth [Amendment]. Cheney: Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified legally? Flynn: Fifth. Cheney: Do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power? Flynn: Fifth.

TELL US, WHICH FLAG DO YOU MOST IDENTIFY WITH?

YOU'RE SHOCKED THAT DONALD WOULD SAY SUCH THINGS? HAVE WE ERASED THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS? PART 1.

PEOPLE ARE IN DISBELIEF THAT TRUMP WOULD SAY AND ACT IN SUCH AN IRRATIONAL MANNER.?

How about a trip down memory lane.

TRUMP TALKS ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

WHO DOES TRUMP BELIEVE: U.S. INTELLIGENCE OR VLADIMIR PUTIN?

HOW DOES THAT OLD SAYING GO? YOU DON'T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU. 

https://youtu.be/mBtsNNXjBPw

How about before he was President?

CANDIDATE TRUMP  TALKING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON,

HINTING AT WHAT GUN EXTREMISTS COULD DO if she is elected.

8/10/2016. (THE "HINTING ABOUT ASSASSINATION" ELECTION STRATEGY. HOW DO YOU SINK LOWER? WELL, DONALD TRIED.)

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. 

Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, 

I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”

EVEN MURDER WOULDN'T BOTHER HIS MOST

FANATIC SUPPORTERS. 

1/23/2016

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

TALKING ABOUT MEXICO.

6/15/2015

"They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE HE HAS ANY BOUNDARIES, WHEN IT COMES ETHICS OR MORALITY? 

Politics · LIVE Former Meadows aide testifies before January 6 committee.

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1BRJjnBaMQZJw

Former Meadows aide testifies before January 6 committee

Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former president Donald Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows, testified on Tuesday before the select committee investigating the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Hutchinson, who previously gave videotaped depositions to the committee behind closed doors, appeared during a 1 pm ET live hearing. This came despite the committee chairperson Bennie Thompson saying the committee would delay the next round of hearings until after the House’s recess, which ends on July 11. Keep it here for the latest.

CNN: January 6 committee unexpectedly adds new hearing for Tuesday.

 

By Annie Grayer, CNN

(CNN)The committee investigating the Capitol Hill insurrection on January 6, 2021, has added a previously unexpected public hearing for Tuesday afternoon, the committee announced Monday.

The panel has not revealed the hearing's topic.

The announcement came as a surprise to many as the committee had said it was not going to resume its hearings until mid-July. Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee's chairman, told reporters last week that the panel needed more time to go through the new documentary footage it received from documentarian Alex Holder, who possesses never-before-seen footage of Trump and his family, new information from the National Archives, and new tips coming in through the panel's tip line since the hearings started in order to move forward with its hearings

The committee did not reveal the witness list or topic but said it would "present recently obtained evidence and receive witness testimony."

Tuesday's hearing starts at 1 p.m. ET. It will be the panel's sixth hearing this month.

In its first five hearings, the committee laid out how former President Donald Trump knew he lost the 2020 presidential election but pressured former Vice President Mike Pence, state officials, and the Department of Justice to work to keep him in office anyway. Members on the committee previously laid out that its final two hearings would focus on the role domestic extremist groups played in attacking the Capitol on January 6 and would fill in the gaps of what Trump was doing as the violence at the Capitol unfolded.

Holder's "Unprecedented" three-part docuseries about the 2020 election will be released on Discovery Plus, which is owned by CNN's parent company, later this summer. The documentary includes never-before-seen footage of the Trump family on the campaign trail and their reactions to the outcome of the election.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Do not stop now. The House has taken the lead over stopping TRUMP AND HIS FASCIST FOLLOWERS FROM DESTROYING THE U.S. Don't be like the Senate, and do nothing. That is what happened in 2016, and look where we are now.

Be the Champions for our Republic that are needed now. You should be proud of your work so far, it will be remembered.

- David.

REMEMBERING THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS: TRUMP AND FASCISM TRIUMPH.(UPDATE)

Sorry, but the ROE VS WADE DECISION, ALONG WITH THE NRA ENDORSED DECISION IN N.Y WAS ANYTHING BUT SUPRISING. WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? A CORRUPT PRESIDENT, IN OFFICE BECAUSE OF A BOGUS ELECTION, WAS NOT LIKELY TO APPOINT THE MOST CAPABLE, OR MOST IMPARTIAL MEMBERS OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION TO THE SCOTUS. YOU GOT AN INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL  BOBBLEHEAD IN THE WHITE HOUSE, SO YOU GOT AN EQUIVALENT TRIO PLACED ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND. I'M SURE PUTIN IS PLEASED.

SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE,  AND THE "LIBERAL " NEWS MEDIA SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT OCCURRED DURING THE BRETT KAVANAUGH HEARINGS FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, HERE IS A REMINDER. THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WITH A FASCIST WHITE HOUSE,  AND AN INEPT AND UNCONCERNED OPPOSITION PARTY.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ALLOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BECOME CORRUPTED BY SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS, INCOMPETENT JURISTS, AND AMORAL LAWMAKERS.

 

REMEMBERING THE TIME WHEN THE U.S. HANDED TRUMP AND HIS BAND OF CORRUPT GOP FASCISTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

FROM NPR NEWS- 6/27/2019.

In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU IGNORE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND ALLOW THE OPPOSITION TO CONTROL THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

OR

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU DO NOT CHALLENGE BOGUS RETURNS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HANDING THE WHITE HOUSE TO A SELF - CENTERED DEMAGOGUE?

ANSWER TO BOTH.

YOU GET DONALD TRUMPS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGHS' TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REGARDING ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades."

WHAT AN INTELLECT!! FITS IN WITH TRUMP AND MCCONNELL PERFECTLY.

WHAT ELSE CAN WE TAKE FROM THIS?

#1. Anger-  Does this reference the Unconstitutional denial of President Barack Obamas choice for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a chance to testify before the Senate, to be followed by a public vote? 

BUT YOU'RE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. REALLY?

#2. President Trump and the 2016 Election- You mean an election with Bogus Returns in at least 6 States that handed Donald Trump the White House, paving the way for him placing 2 Judges on the Supreme Court.

Do you mean "FEAR" of having the future course of Judicial Precedents decided by DONALD TRUMP, whose behavior while in the WHITE HOUSE is often considered to be IRRATIONAL AND VINDICTIVE? 

#3. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons- I assume you have the facts to back this up, since this is a direct accusation. Also, Do you mean that the Clintons planned and executed these plans directly, or are unwitting pawns that had no knowledge about the attempt to create this "Circus"?

IS THIS HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY?

So, What do I mean when I say: TODAYS DONALD TRUMP IS WHAT 
HE WAS ALLOWED TO BECOME...

Ask yourself the following question: OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT;  EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL, WHAT IS THE HIGHEST OFFICE/MOST POWERFUL POSITION THAT CAN BE OCCUPIED IN EACH BRANCH?

ANSWER.

EXECUTIVE-    PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

LEGISLATIVE-  U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.
                     SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REP.

JUDICIAL-        ONE OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE
                       U.S. SUPREME COURT.

Now, in most recent history, what events have most influenced the
current state of each office. 

For that, let's go back a few years.

THE SUPREME COURT.

On FEB,13, 2016 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA passed away.
THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, following procedures Set forth in the U.S.
CONSTITUTION, nominated JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND TO FILL THE VACANCY.       

The following passage is taken from the U.S. CONSTITUTION.

"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."

However, for the first time in U.S. HISTORY, THE U.S. SENATE DID NOT MEET TO QUESTION
THE NOMINEE, SO THAT THEY COULD "ADVISE" THE PRESIDENT, AND VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE JUDGE GARLAND NOMINATION. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL DECIDED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS NOT A DUTY OR OBLIGATION THAT THE U.S. SENATE HAS, BUT CAN BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT. SO, HE REFUSED TO SEAT THE SENATE TO ACT ON THE NOMINATION.

GIVEN SENATOR MCCONNELLS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, I DON'T EXPECT MUCH IN THE WAY OF FAIR AND INTELLECTUALLY JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE POLITICAL AGENDA HE PUSHES. HOWEVER, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES REFUSAL TO FILE SUIT, AND BRING THIS MATTER INTO COURT TO FORCE MCCONNELL AND OTHER REPUBLICANS TO OBEY THE OATH THEY TOOK TO "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION," SHOWED AN INEXPLICABLE LACK OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL COURAGE. WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK THIS SENT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? TO BAD, IT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.

This U.S. Supreme Court isn't about Intellectually and Reasonably applying Constitutional Law to todays Social and Political Issues. It's about finding any excuse to install Fascism in the U.S. PART 1. (UPDATE)

THE RULING STRIKING DOWN NEW YORKS LAW ABOUT THE PUBLIC CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, WAS "JUSTIFIED" BY THE OPINION OFFERED BY JUSTICE THOMAS, WHO WROTE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE MAJORITY:

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

Number one is the fact that he is interpreting the history of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW INCORRECTLY.

All Constitutional Rights, are considered to be ABSOLUTE, in the form they are presented in the Document. Government,(COURTS), PLACE AND IMPLEMENT GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS ON SUCH BEHAVIORS. NO ONE WAS REQUIRED TO ASK PERMISSION IN EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT CAME UP INVOLVING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE COURTS STEPPED IN WHEN INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WERE MISUSING OR ABUSING A PARTICULAR RIGHT. Citizens did not have to prove that they had the "RIGHT" TO ANYTHING, COURTS HAD TO STEP IN AND SAY "NO YOU DO NOT," OR "YES, YOU DO."

THAT IS HOW WE GET "CONTINGENT" RIGHTS.

You need to stop thinking of ROBERTS, THOMAS, ALITO, KAVANAUGH, GORSUCH, AND BARRET AS LEGAL SCHOLARS OR PROFESSIONALS. THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FASCIST STOOGES WORKING FOR THE GOP. THEIR GOAL? TO UNDERMIND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FOR A FINAL TAKEOVER LED BY THE "NEW" REPUBLICAN PARTY, WHO SEE STALINIST RUSSIA/HITLERS GERMANY AS THE MODEL FOR THE NEW U.S.

  

AXIOS: AG Garland: States can't ban FDA-approved abortion pills on safety grounds.

You remember MERRICK GARLAND, right? He was PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAS selection for the SUPREME COURT, but was denied a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED HEARING BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE. A prime example of the GOPS DESIRE TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION. THIS WAS MADE EVEN WORSE BY THE DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF SENATE DEMOCRATS, WHO DID NOTHING TO COMBAT THIS CLEAR VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (That is just one reason I do no trust any Senator elected before 2016. Not a single one said a word, just like there was no opposition to BOGUS ELECTION RESULTS THAT HANDED THE WHITE HOUSE TO DONALD TRUMP.)

I guess we're lucky. A Legal Scholar who is not a GOP STOOGE, and believes that FASCISM has no place in our Legal System.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaking in Washington, D.C., on June 13.      

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

• BY- Jacob Knutson

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Friday, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, that states cannot ban mifepristone, a medication that is used to bring about an abortion, based on disagreement with the federal government on its safety and efficacy.

Why it matters: With Roe overturned, prescribed drugs that terminate pregnancies are likely to become the next major contention between abortion rights activists and opponents of abortion rights.

• Already, almost half of U.S. states have banned or tightly restricted abortion pills — two medicines named mifepristone and misoprostol — and more could soon follow suit, Axios' Oriana Gonzalez, Ashley Gold and Jacque Schrag report.

How it works: Mifepristone and misoprostol have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

• The agency in December lifted long-standing restrictions on mifepristone, allowing doctors to prescribe the medication online and send them to patients by mail.
• Misoprostol was available with a prescription before the FDA's decision.

Despite the changes, many states have moved to make it illegal for doctors to mail the medications.

• For example, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed a law in June making it illegal for anyone to mail abortion pills, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine.

What they're saying: "The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services," Garland said in the statement Friday.

• "And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care," he added.
• "In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy."

Yes, but: It is far from settled law as to whether states can ban the pills, and the issue will likely have to be litigated in the courts, though there's really no clear precedent, according to the Washington Post.

Go deeper:

• Abortion pill online orders expected to grow post Roe
• Pills are the next big abortion battleground