The video was filmed before the election results had even been announced.

  • btaf45@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    184
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminder that Roger Stone is not the only coup plot insider who confessed Trump’s Start the Steal conspiracy plans to a group of Trump insiders before the election.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112138665/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    …audio from Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, surfaced from October 31st, 2020, just a few days before the Presidential election.

    Let’s listen. [Begin Videotape]

    STEVE BANNON: And what Trump’s going to do is declare victory, right? He’s going to declare victory, but that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner. The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. And so they’re going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump’s going to take advantage — that’s our strategy.

    He’s gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm. Also — also if Trump is — if Trump is losing by 10 or 11:00 at night, it’s going to be even crazier. Because he’s gonna sit right there and say they stole it. If Biden’s wining, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.

    • JerkyChew@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A member of team Trump (Peter Navarro maybe?) was describing the plan on Ari Melber’s MSNBC show. Ari stopped him and said, “you know that’s a coup, right? What you’re describing is a coup.” - The guy had no idea.

      Education is important.

    • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. He has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back and he’s one of the biggest pieces of shit in a generation. He has no redeeming qualities. There are a few documentaries about him, I think Netflix had a good one a couple years ago.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fun fact: in the past 30 years of presidential elections Republicans have had more riots than they have popular vote victories!

        • pips@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, and it appears that had vote counting been allowed unimpeded in Florida, as opposed to undemocratically stopping it for partisan gain, Gore would have won the electoral college and popular vote in 2000.

        • Glide@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s really nothing fun about defining land as more important than people.

      • buddhabound@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would you believe me if I told you that at least 3 of the current supreme court members were lawyers arguing on behalf of Bush in that case?

        • ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito?

          Also, while wikipediaing Alito, I learned that Alito worked under Trump’s sister as an AUSA and she spoke at Alito’s confirmation hearing. Also, Bill Clinton appointed Trump’s sister to the appellate court.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Tell me you didn’t read the linked article without telling me you didn’t read the linked article.

            “In each case, if the newly examined votes had been allowed to count in the November election, Mr Gore would have won Florida’s 21 electoral college votes by a narrow majority and he, not Mr Bush, would be the president. Instead, Mr Bush officially carried Florida by 537 votes after recounts were stopped.”

              • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve been reading it since January 2001.

                If the recounts had been allowed to complete, no matter how you counted the votes, Gore would have won.

                Bush only became President because they stopped counting valid ballots.

                • ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  29
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  My comment was tongue in cheek and a joke. You missed the joke. I agree with you that Gore should have won.

      • Unaware7013@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        The republicans have not won the presidency legitimately since HW Bush. I don’t count GW’s second term because the first one was illegitimate.

        • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Always knew that why hated Bush so much and still do. Gore was my first presidential election. Just turn 20.

  • Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This title is clickbait garbage, but at least it doesn’t use the word “slam”.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the Trump legal defense is that he believed he won the election and was investigating fraud, and this proves that they were planning to call fraud before the election happened, then that does disprove his legal defense.

      Do you mean by “clickbait garbage” that the language is too inflammatory for you regardless of the article content?

      • davidalso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except weren’t they were claiming that mail-in ballots were potentially fraudulent for months before the election? This video doesn’t disprove anything if they claimed that ballots that had already been cast were illegal.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not that I’m aware of, but if so, that would just bolster the case of now additional, ironclad video evidence of intentional foreplanned election interference and manipulation.

          If their main defense is that the cries of election fraud were a result of a legitimate investigation but this video shows deliberate planning to cry fraud before the election even happened, that seems like a significant point against his legal defense, although the title is inflammatory and weird. Dooms?

          • davidalso@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the part that I don’t think is a strong argument though. They were crying fraud long before the election, e.g., saying that mail-in ballots were illegal, claiming people were stuffing drop-off, etc. None of it was valid, but their argument was well established before election day.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s a difference between vague inflammatory remarks about how people can manipulate mail-in ballots during campaign speeches versus a political consultant to Trump detailing how exactly they plan to interfere and manipulate the results of a fair election if it doesn’t go their way.

              Any member of a board of directors may give a speech about how stock values might be compromised by valuable information and would likely not be criminally liable for speculation, but if one board member informs the rest about his intention to disclose private company information to the public in order to sway the markets, that is a criminal insider trading conspiracy that all board members could be held criminally liable for.

        • JoBo@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The media are getting a bit hung up on this. Trump’s state of mind is entirely irrelevant. His actions are not.

          They’re not being prosecuted for stating that they believe fraud happened (or was happening). They’re perfectly entitled to say that whether they truly believe it or not. What they’re not entitled to do is bypass the courts, threaten officials, fraudulently access voting machines, fraudulently put forward fake electors, and so on. Stone is planning some of the illegal actions taken after the election here. This video is one of many pieces of evidence of an active conspiracy to subvert the election.

          • davidalso@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah ok. Thank you. I think I was getting stuck on the timing, which did not seem particularly relevant.

          • Elderos@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think intent is important, and if you can prove that they knew it was not stolen it is gonna be devastating for their case because it shutdown the whole premise of the defense. It would be a critical failure of defense.

            • JoBo@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It really isn’t relevant. They’re not being prosecuted for saying untrue things, or things they believed to be false at the time. They’re being prosecuted for conspiracy to overturn the election.

              • Elderos@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Intent is very important. The lying part makes it a conspiracy and very illegal, and you can open the indictment yourself to verify. There is a whole section about it on page 6 of the Columbia indictment.

      • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        They got billions from the Saudis by being an “ambassador” while Trump was president. Who knows what slimy shit they’re doing.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They know that for the rest of their lives long after Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump is gone they will be tied to a father with the same reputation as Benedict Arnold. That realization has got to be depressing.

  • pingveno@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminder that Roger Stone coordinated timing with WikiLeaks to drop the emails that Russia had hacked and passed off to WikiLeaks. The low point of Trump’s campaign - the release of the Access Hollywood tape - had WikiLeaks dripping emails within hours. Julian Assange’s outfit had fallen from a champion of press freedom to a facilitator of the Russian dictatorship interfering in elections.

  • jackfrost@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The clip was part of Guldbrandsen’s documentary, A Storm Foretold, released in March of this year.

    So there’s nothing actually new about this video. It’s just that Donald forgot that someone filmed the slimy inner workings of his re-election campaign when it came time to mount a defense, and he doesn’t have any good lawyers to help him avoid painting himself into a corner again. Hell, he probably lied to his lawyers, too.

    • Gatsby@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hell, he probably lied to his lawyers, too.

      I don’t think there’s any “probably” about it lol. If Trump’s talking he’s lying. That’s just how it works.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    The video … depicts the right-wing lobbyist dictating a fake elector plot in key battleground states. The video was taken on November 5, 2020, two days before the election was called, thus disproving Trump’s main defense that he and his allies genuinely believed they had won the race.

  • Vlhacs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d like for him to rot in jail, but doesn’t this need to prove that Stone plotted with Trump to be of any use?

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s kind of the point of RICO. If this is a coordinated conspiracy then Trump can’t just say “hey listen my advisors told me this was legal” if those advisors are on tape giving out the details of their criminal conspiracy

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      As pointed out elsehwere, Stone does not have to be collaborating directly with Trump, but there are still a lot of unidentified co-conspirators, and “other persons known and unknown to the grand jury.” There’s room for Stone to be in one of those groups.

    • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I find it very hard to imagine that there isn’t evidence of this traitor directly plotting with Trump et al. We just haven’t seen it yet.

      It could just be hopium, but I doubt it; we certainly haven’t seen the last of Jack Smith on Jan 6th indictments, after all.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I find it very hard to imagine that there isn’t evidence of this traitor directly plotting with Trump et al. We just haven’t seen it yet.

        I have no doubts that at some point before the election their was a Coup Plot Kickoff Meeting with at least Bannon, Stone, Treason Trump, and Guiliani in the meeting. I don’t know who else was in this meeting, but we know that Bannon and Stone attended the meeting because of their video confessions.