Psychodrama As Presidential Politics

In an interview with @nprinskeep, former President Trump continued to deny reality about his 2020 election loss.

After 9 minutes of being pressed on his lies, he abruptly ended the call. https://t.co/3Wc2RX7lQH

— NPR (@NPR) January 12, 2022

 Yes, this is Trump's idea of "evidence" of "election fraud":

I just have to point out Doug Logan — to name one of the states that you just named — Doug Logan, who ran the audit in Arizona that was set up by your allies, didn't find serious problems. This is a quote. "The ballots that were provided to us to count in the Coliseum very accurately correlate with the official canvass numbers." He raised a bunch of administrative issues, but didn't find a problem that would have changed the result at all.

The ballots may correspond, but look at the ballots themselves. The number of ballots doesn't mean anything. It's who signed the ballots, where did the ballots come from. What you really have to do in that report is look at the findings. And the findings are devastating for Arizona. They're devastating like nobody's seen before --

Why did — why did your —

-- And other states are just as bad.

Why did Republican officials in Arizona accept the results then?

Because they're RINOs, and frankly, a lot of people are questioning that. Why would they? They fought very hard, the Maricopa County people. And people don't understand it, because all you have to do is look at the findings.

And, just so you know, some of those people went before Congress a short while ago, and they were grilled by Congressman Biggs. You ought to take a look at their testimony. They weren't able to answer anything. He made them look like fools. They couldn't answer a thing. They got up and gave a beautiful statement. And then when it came time to ask, why this? Why that? What about these votes? What about those votes? They look like total fools.

Is it any wonder he lost 60+ cases in court, most of them thrown out at the first challenge because they were not founded on facts?  And yes, just to pound on that nail, it does get dumber:

Let me read you some short quotes. The first is by one of the judges, one of the 10 judges you appointed, who ruled on this. And there were many judges, but 10 who you appointed. Brett Ludwig, U.S. District Court in Wisconsin, who was nominated by you in 2020. He's on the bench and he says, quote, "This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits."

Another quote, Kory Langhofer, your own campaign attorney in Arizona, Nov. 12, 2020, quote, "We are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are not alleging anyone stealing the election." And also Rudy Giuliani, your lawyer, Nov. 18, 2020, in Pennsylvania, quote, "This is not a fraud case." Your own lawyers had no evidence of fraud, they said in court they had no evidence of fraud, and the judges ruled against you every time on the merits.

It was too early to ask for fraud and to talk about fraud. Rudy said that, because of the fact it was very early with the — because that was obviously at a very, very — that was a long time ago. The things that have found out have more than bore out what people thought and what people felt and what people found.

When you look at Langhofer, I disagree with him as an attorney. I did not think he was a good attorney to hire. I don't know what his game is, but I will just say this: You look at the findings. You look at the number of votes. Go into Detroit and just ask yourself, is it true that there are more votes than there are voters? Look at Pennsylvania. Look at Philadelphia. Is it true that there were far more votes than there were voters?

The whole basis of his challenge was fraud.  He still insists it was a "rigged" election.  In law, we call that "fraud."  And you can either prove it, or you can't.  And he can't, because the basis for his challenge is invented claims he can't back up with facts, and that Biden was "in a basement" and Trump drew bigger crowds:

They said, there was no standing to give the case. That's correct. Can I just ask --

Well, yeah, no standing, I know, no standing. And the president of the United States supposedly didn't have standing, either. So I wanted to file it myself. They said, "Sir, you don't have standing." I said, wait a minute. I'm the president of the United States. They just rigged an election. Hundreds of thousands of votes in different states. They just rigged an election. We got — we got a number of votes that, I think you'll agree — no sitting president has ever gotten the number of votes that I got. No sitting president has ever gotten --

Lot of votes. That's true. In — lot of — lot of — you --

No sitting president. Do you — I — nobody believes. You think Biden got 80 million votes? Because I don't believe it.

It's true — it's true that you got more than any sitting president in the election you've disputed.

You mean he got them sitting in his basement. He got 80 — how come he couldn't — then how come Biden --

If I can, Mr. President, Mr. President.

Let me ask you this question. How come Biden couldn't attract 20 people for a crowd? How come when he went to speak in different locations, nobody came to watch, but all of a sudden he got 80 million votes? Nobody believes that, Steve. Nobody believes that.

But here's the nut; here's the real news from this interview.  And it happens just before Trump hangs up:

If you'll forgive me, maybe because the election was about you. If I can just move on to ask, are you telling Republicans in 2022 that they must press your case on the past election in order to get your endorsement? Is that an absolute?

They are going to do whatever they want to do — whatever they have to do, they're going to do. But the ones that are smart — the ones that know, you take a look at. Again, you take a look at how Kari Lake is doing, running for governor. She's very big on this issue. She's leading by a lot. People have no idea how big this issue is, and they don't want it to happen again. It shouldn't be allowed to happen, and they don't want it to happen again.

I want to --

And the only way it's not going to happen again is you have to solve the problem of the presidential rigged election of 2020.

Mr. President, if I --

So Steve, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Woah, woah, woah, I have one more question. I want to ask about a court hearing yesterday on Jan. 6. Judge Amit Mehta. He's gone. OK. 

I highlighed Inskeep's first statement because that is the trigger, IMHO.  Not an intentional one, but it sets Trump off to give his answer that it is, indeed, all about "ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!"

And the only way it's not going to happen again is you have to solve the problem of the presidential rigged election of 2020.

And I highlighted Trump's answer because there it is in a nutshell:  "you have to solve the problem of the presidential rigged election of 2020."  What does that even mean?  To the world at large, there is no problem.  To Trump, it is the only problem:  how could he lose?  He couldn't, therefore he didn't, therefore that's the problem that must be solved.  And the solution?  Declare him the winner, of course.

If he is at all capable, Trump is going to run again in 2024.  But he's going to run solely (in the final analysis) on "the problem of the presidential rigged election of 2020."  And he's going to find fewer and fewer Americans willing to help him solve the psychodrama of his own afflictions.  The major issue of 2024 is not going to be "the problem of the presidential rigged election of 2020."  Period.