Members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have warned America for three years to take former President Donald Trump at his word.
Now, as Trump is poised to win the Republican presidential nomination, his criminal trials face delays that could stall them past Election Day, and his rhetoric grows increasingly authoritarian, some of those lawmakers find themselves following their own advice.
In mid-March, Trump said on social media that the committee members should be jailed. In December he vowed to be a dictator on “day one.” In August, he said he would “have no choice” but to lock up his political opponents.
“If he intends to eliminate our constitutional system and start arresting his political enemies, I guess I would be on that list,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose). “One thing I did learn on the committee is to pay attention and listen to what Trump says, because he means it.”
Lofgren added that she doesn’t yet have a plan in place to thwart potential retribution by Trump. But Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who has long been a burr in Trump’s side, said he’s having “real-time conversations” with his staff about how to make sure he stays safe if Trump follows through on his threats.
“We’re taking this seriously, because we have to,” Schiff said. “We’ve seen this movie before … and how perilous it is to ignore what someone is saying when they say they want to be a dictator.”
This is from the article.
Are you claiming to have a better understanding of trumps mode of operation than someone who was on the Jan 6 committee, studied trumps behaviour and various utterances, and had the benefit of expert opinions?
I'm claiming that Rep. Zoe Lofgren and other Democrats on the committee have a lot to gain by spreading FUD and not a lot to lose. So it makes complete sense for them to stretch the truth.
That said, their job isn't to determine whether Trump is likely to act on his threats, their job is to determine whether those threats represent s violation of the law and whether he violated the Constitution (and other applicable federal laws) on Jan 6. Whether he'd actually act on his threats is irrelevant.
I think there's enough there to make a very strong case against Trump without getting into theatrics.