'I didn't win the election': Trump admits defeat in session with historians

[babylonsister]

‘I didn’t win the election’: Trump admits defeat in session with historians
The ex-president also said that Iran, China and South Korea were happy Biden won, adding that ‘the election was rigged and lost’
Martin Pengelly in New York
@MartinPengelly
Tue 5 Apr 2022 07.22 EDT
Last modified on Tue 5 Apr 2022 07.46 EDT



“I didn’t win the election,” he said.

The admission came in a video interview with a panel of historians convened by Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and editor of The Presidency of Donald Trump: A First Historical Assessment. The interview was published on Monday by the Atlantic.

snip//

Writing for the Atlantic, Zelizer said Trump “was the one who had decided to reach out to a group of professional historians so that we produced ‘an accurate book’”.

The former president called the historians assembled by Zelizer “a tremendous group of people, and I think rather than being critical I’d like to have you hear me out, which is what we’re doing now, and I appreciate it”.

Trump, Zelizer wrote, “seemed to want the approval of historians, without any understanding of how historians gather evidence or render judgments”.

more...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/05/trump-admits-election-defeat-historians-zelizer-princeton

[Thomas Hurt]

1. The Pig did do his incompetent best to rig the election in his favor, no doubt.

[Lovie777]

2. Well Putin had a sad ....

[Walleye]

3. Somebody finally told him that if he actually won in 2020, he couldn't run in 2024

[Emile]

4. Bwhaha +1

[empedocles]

6. .

[empedocles]

5. This trump admission is not likely to bother traitortrump's base, - or their awareness even.

[niyad]

7. Still saying it was rigged, not thhat 81 million people thought he was a danger

to the entire world.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Yup, a non-admission, accent on the prefix

[Botany]

8. Trump knew he was going to lose months the election hence his ripping out Jackie's Rose Garden

He did that just to be a dick because he knew he was going to lose and he knows he is not going
to run for President in 2024 because he has sold off the lease on his "grift house" aka Trump
International Hotel in D.C..

Spoiler Alert: He is saying he is running just so he can fleece his rubes.

[onethatcares]

9. ahhhh, just think

of all that "stop the steal" and merch that his minions shelled out for only to have him fold like a cheap seat at his rallies.

Millions donated to the cause only to go into his pockets.

[Silent3]

11. If he's still saying it was "rigged", that's no admission of truth whatsoever.

That’s just saying “I really won, but it didn’t get counted the right way.”

[Samrob]

13. Yes, it was rigged but he still lost despite his rigging efforts. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

18. +1

The biggest reason for the 17 month tantrum is that they were 100% sure they had put the fix in.
It never occurred to them that he motivated a hear record turnout to vote against him.
So, they've never gotten over the loss.
"Somebody must have cheated better than us!"

[BlueIdaho]

12. I see he's down to "working the refs" now...

He’s so stupid he doesn’t realize that his final history will be written after he is dead. There is no redemption for a monster like Trump.

[MissMillie]

14. So with this admission, will he leave the country (as he promised)?

Oh wait... I almost forgot who I was talking about.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. I saw that in the article that I posted yesterday

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16562769

I went and read the article cited in the Political Wire article and it was amusing. TFG really does not understand academics or how to argue to intelligent people.

Link to tweet

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/trump-interview-a-first-historical-assessment/629454/

As an academic historian, I never expected to find myself in a videoconference with Donald Trump. But one afternoon last summer—a day after C-SPAN released a poll of historians who ranked him just above Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan, our country’s worst chief executives—he popped up in a Zoom box and told me and some of my colleagues about the 45th presidency from his point of view. He spoke calmly. “We’ve had some great people; we’ve had some people that weren’t so great. That’s understandable,” he told us. “That’s true with, I guess, every administration. But overall, we had tremendous, tremendous success.”…..

But if anything, our conversation with the former president underscored common criticisms: that he construed the presidency as a forum to prove his dealmaking prowess; that he sought flattery and believed too much of his own spin; that he dismissed substantive criticism as misinformed, politically motivated, ethically compromised, or otherwise cynical. He demonstrated a limited historical worldview: When praising the virtues of press releases over tweets—because the former are more elegant and lengthier—he sounded as if he himself had discovered that old form of presidential communication. He showed little interest in exploring, or even acknowledging, some of the contradictions and tensions in his record……

When the Yale historian Beverly Gage brought up the president’s relationship with the FBI and the intelligence community—the subject of her chapter in our book—he eventually turned to the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021. According to his memory, the expert opinion was off. The “real story,” Trump argued, “has yet to be written.” When Congress met to certify the Electoral College results, Trump told us, there had been a “peaceful rally,” more than a “million people” who were full of “tremendous love” and believed the election was “rigged” and “robbed” and “stolen.” He made a “very modest” and “very peaceful” speech, a “presidential speech.” The throng at the Capitol was a “massive” and “tremendous” group of people. The day was marred by a small group of left-wing antifa and Black Lives Matter activists who “infiltrated” them and who were not stopped, because of poor decisions by the U.S. Capitol Police when some “bad things happened.”

During our hour together, Trump didn’t have many questions for us. Even in his attempt to correct the record, Trump mostly didn’t acknowledge or engage with informed outside criticisms of his presidency. He did, however, admit to having sometimes retweeted people he shouldn’t have, and at one point he said, “when I didn’t win the election”—phrasing at odds with his false claim that the 2020 vote was stolen......

He seemed to want the approval of historians, without any understanding of how historians gather evidence or render judgments. Notwithstanding the C-SPAN polls, our goal is not to rank presidents but to analyze and interpret presidencies in longer time horizons. We want to understand the changes that take place to public policy, democratic institutions, norms of governing, and the relationship between White House officials and political movements. Though we are always eager to read oral histories by participants—and hear directly from a former president—these sorts of comments play only one small part in works that are checked and cross-examined with other contemporaneous sources. In practice, professional historians gather their evidence by reviewing essential written and oral documents stored in archives—which is why so many in my profession shuddered upon learning that boxes of material were initially carted off to the former president’s home at Mar-a-Lago rather than given directly to experts at the National Archives.

This article is really amusing. TFG is too stupid to make a good argument that would be accepted by an intelligent person and the historians who TFG tried to persuade were also amused.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. This statement will be used to show that TFG did not believe his BS about the Big Lie

TFG knew that he lost

Link to tweet

[ProfessorGAC]

19. I'm Not Reading An Admission

Because the "rigged" nonsense is still there.
So, it's weak evidence to a prosecutor because the clear implication is "I lost because they cheated."
That doesn't negate the "big lie". It's totally consistent with it.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

23. Here is the video

This will be used in any trial and will raise doubts about TFG's claims about the big lie

Link to tweet

[ProfessorGAC]

25. We Don't Agree

It may be used, but it's easily defensible because he still slipped in "rigged".
IOW, i hear "I lost BECAUSE it was rigged."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

26. Trump admits: "I didn't win the election." How this & other statements will be used against him

Are you a member of the Bar? I AMJURED evidence a very long time ago and I disagree with your analysis (if you are a member of hte bar, you should know the term AMJURED).

I also trust Glenn's analysis

Link to tweet

Please understand that this video would be admitted as evidence. To contest this video, TFG would have to take the stand to contest this quote which would be interesting.

Glen is correct in his analysis

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Why So Touchy?

Is there a rule saying i have to agree?
I don't hear an admission in his ramblings that don't include the cheating allegations.
I think(!) you & Greenwald are engaging in wishful thinking.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

29. Again, you did not answer my question-are you a member of the Bar?

Your attempt at analysis is simply WRONG. Read the rules of evidence. This admission by TFG is clearly admissible and it will be up to TFG to try to explain such admission

BTW. it is Glen Kirshner and not Greenwald. Such a sad mistake does not help your position. Comparing anyone to Greenwald is sad

[ProfessorGAC]

36. There's No Attempt To Analyze

You're being ridiculous.
Everybody here (that pays attention) knows I'm a retired scientist.
However, as someone who has sat on juries, and been involved in multiple cases as an expert witness, I'm as entitled as anybody else to have an opinion on WHAT I HEARD OR READ.
You calling it an analysis doesn't make it so.
My OPINION is that it would be easy to defuse these comments to a jury. Your attempt to wrap it in legal detail doesn't change a thing.
I don't need to be a lawyer to have an opinion.
As a retired scientist, how would you like it if I criticized you for opining on a COVID study? If I asked for your background or credentials to have an opinion on data analysis of a given study, I'm sure you'd find that insulting.
Then, you'd know how I feel.
I will not reply further, unless you can turn down the insulting nature of your replies.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

41. Your attempt at analysis is WRONG

I have not found your posts worth following and so I did not pay attention to your claimed qualifications. It was clear that you are NOT a member of the Bar which is why your attempts at analysis are so wrong that they are funny. If you want me to pay attention to your posts, then please do NOT post attempts at analysis that are totally WRONG.

Anyone, comparing Glen Kirshner to Glen Greenwald is really sad. It is also clear that as a layperson you do NOT understand the issues.

Glen Kirshner is a litigator who has prosecuted many criminals in the real world and understand legal concepts and your attempt at analysis is simply wrong. Again, there are good reasons why it is illegal for lay persons to attempt to practice law. There is a ton of evidence proving that TFG committed acts that constitute crimes. One of TFG's only defenses is to claim that he really believed that he won and so did not have the required mens rea to have committed the crime. There is a ton of evidence that will be used to show that it is not reasonable for TFG to believe that he won including (i) the fact that his own campaign tolt him that he lost. (ii) Bill Barr told him that there was no fraud, (iii) the govt. official in charge of cyber defenses opined that the 2020 election was the fairest election in history, (iv) 63 court rulings found no fraud, (v) all of the post-election audits have found no fraud, and (vi) TFG has been able to monetize the lies about fraud to raise over $100 million in funds. Glen is pointing out that this admission (and it is an admission under the rules of evidence) will be used with the other evidence.

TFG would be an idiot to take the stand in a criminal trial. TFG has not done well in depositions in civil trials and would not stand up to cross examination in either a criminal or civil trial. If TFG wants to dispute the admission being discussed, he would need to take the stand to advance your amusing argument.

TFG is a layperson who has issues. For example, in a post from yesterday, it was pointed out that TFG on a regular basis confesses to his crimes, See https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016319638

A central feature of Trump’s corruption is that he sometimes confesses to it in public. In this circular wizardry, Trump’s conduct can’t possibly be corrupt if he’s so eager to cop to it openly.

Here Trump appears to blithely confirm he spoke to lawmakers during the insurrection, and suggests there was nothing wrong with those calls. Presto! All wrongdoing goes poof!

That interview may be used by the prosecutor if there is a trial to show that TFG was talking steps to further the attempted insurrection and will be admissible

Again, thank you for proving why the laws prohibiting laypersons from practicing laws are needed. Your attempt at analysis is so bad that it is funny..

[Cha]

31. That's Not "Greenwald" in the Vid.. that's

Glenn Kirshner.. A respected retired prosecutor from the US Attorney's Office.

Kirschner prosecuted more than 50 murder trials, served as Deputy Chief of the Homicide Section for four years, and was Chief of the Homicide Section from 2004 to 2010. He retired from the US Attorney's office on June 1, 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Kirschner#:~:text=Kirschner%20prosecuted%20more%20than%2050%20murder%20trials%2C%20served,the%20US%20Attorney%27s%20office%20on%20June%201%2C%202018.

💙💛

[LetMyPeopleVote]

34. Confusing Glen Kirshner with Greenwald was very sad

Layperson attempting to discuss the rules of evidence amuses me. The poster was totally wrong is his claims

[ProfessorGAC]

37. I Made NO CLAIMS!

I question your claimed credentials if you can't tell the difference between an opinion & a legal claim.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to wrong about an opinion based upon what I actually heard.
As soon as the concept of cheating comes up, I hear "I lost, but only because they cheated."
This has nothing to do with rules of evidence. Jurors are rarely experts on rules of evidence.
I'd think you'd know that. Apparently not. Too busy trying to show others up.
And, BTW, you didn't answer my question either.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

39. Your attempt at analysis shows why the laws prohibiting non-lawyers from practicing law are needed

Last edited Fri Apr 8, 2022, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Anyone, comparing Glen Kirshner to Glen Greenwald is really sad. It is also clear that as a layperson you do NOT understand the issues.

You are entitled to your opinion but such opinion is not admissible under the rules of evidence. If TFG's attorneys attempted to introduce a layperson or no expert to try to introduce your lay opinion, TFG's request would be laughed at and rejected. Again the rules of evidence are relevant. Lay persons or no experts can testify as to facts in their personal knowledge but the opinions of a layperson or non expert are not admissible. There is a rule on what type of expert opinions are allowed.

Link to tweet

Here the tape of TFG's admission would be admitted but non-expert opinions on what TFG meant to say would not be admitted. TFG can testify as to what he meant but if that happens, TFG would be subject to cross

Again, laypersons are not allowed to practice law for a reason

[ProfessorGAC]

38. Love Ya, Cha But Not Relevant

I mixed up 2 Glens. Nothing to do with my point.
And, I'm going to stand up to the badgering from the other poster despite those efforts to continue to belittle my opinion.
One need not be a lawyer to have an opinion.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

40. LOL

Again, you are WRONG.

[Me.]

42. Aha!

morning (for me) Cha

[Cha]

33. It was hard sitting through all those

gagging tffg LIES!

he's a fucking SICK GASLIT POS! & a Whiney ASS BLUBBERING ASSFACE

Mentally Incompetent and the WORST POS EVER in the WH.

💙💛

[Cha]

32. Rt💖🤷‍♂️TY! Glenn Kirshner is the Best!

Justice Matters!

💙💛

[cstanleytech]

17. I predict that legitimate historians will not be kind towards

Trump and the Nazi Republicans of this era.

[Solly Mack]

20. ...

Trump “was the one who had decided to reach out to a group of professional historians so that we produced ‘an accurate book’”

A "charm" offensive.

His way of trying to influence and work the writers of history.

[Hamlette]

21. the part I loved was him ranking the people/countries who were happiest Biden won.

Spoiler alert: all of them are bad people/countries. Iran, South Korea, China, blah blah blah.

To Trump it is all about who loves Trump. This is the definition of shallow.

[Achilleaze]

22. Will Fox, Inc. (R) break the news to the Magats?

Or continue to support The Big Lie (R)?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. Here is the video of TFG's admission that he lost the election

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. Glen Kirschner-Trump admits: "I didn't win the election." How this & other statements will be used

Glen Kirshner's analysis is spot on

Link to tweet

Here is the artilce that Glen references. TFG really does not understand academics or how to argue to intelligent people.

Link to tweet

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/trump-interview-a-first-historical-assessment/629454/

As an academic historian, I never expected to find myself in a videoconference with Donald Trump. But one afternoon last summer—a day after C-SPAN released a poll of historians who ranked him just above Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan, our country’s worst chief executives—he popped up in a Zoom box and told me and some of my colleagues about the 45th presidency from his point of view. He spoke calmly. “We’ve had some great people; we’ve had some people that weren’t so great. That’s understandable,” he told us. “That’s true with, I guess, every administration. But overall, we had tremendous, tremendous success.”…..

But if anything, our conversation with the former president underscored common criticisms: that he construed the presidency as a forum to prove his dealmaking prowess; that he sought flattery and believed too much of his own spin; that he dismissed substantive criticism as misinformed, politically motivated, ethically compromised, or otherwise cynical. He demonstrated a limited historical worldview: When praising the virtues of press releases over tweets—because the former are more elegant and lengthier—he sounded as if he himself had discovered that old form of presidential communication. He showed little interest in exploring, or even acknowledging, some of the contradictions and tensions in his record……

When the Yale historian Beverly Gage brought up the president’s relationship with the FBI and the intelligence community—the subject of her chapter in our book—he eventually turned to the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021. According to his memory, the expert opinion was off. The “real story,” Trump argued, “has yet to be written.” When Congress met to certify the Electoral College results, Trump told us, there had been a “peaceful rally,” more than a “million people” who were full of “tremendous love” and believed the election was “rigged” and “robbed” and “stolen.” He made a “very modest” and “very peaceful” speech, a “presidential speech.” The throng at the Capitol was a “massive” and “tremendous” group of people. The day was marred by a small group of left-wing antifa and Black Lives Matter activists who “infiltrated” them and who were not stopped, because of poor decisions by the U.S. Capitol Police when some “bad things happened.”

During our hour together, Trump didn’t have many questions for us. Even in his attempt to correct the record, Trump mostly didn’t acknowledge or engage with informed outside criticisms of his presidency. He did, however, admit to having sometimes retweeted people he shouldn’t have, and at one point he said, “when I didn’t win the election”—phrasing at odds with his false claim that the 2020 vote was stolen......

He seemed to want the approval of historians, without any understanding of how historians gather evidence or render judgments. Notwithstanding the C-SPAN polls, our goal is not to rank presidents but to analyze and interpret presidencies in longer time horizons. We want to understand the changes that take place to public policy, democratic institutions, norms of governing, and the relationship between White House officials and political movements. Though we are always eager to read oral histories by participants—and hear directly from a former president—these sorts of comments play only one small part in works that are checked and cross-examined with other contemporaneous sources. In practice, professional historians gather their evidence by reviewing essential written and oral documents stored in archives—which is why so many in my profession shuddered upon learning that boxes of material were initially carted off to the former president’s home at Mar-a-Lago rather than given directly to experts at the National Archives.

This article is really amusing. TFG is too stupid to make a good argument that would be accepted by an intelligent person and the historians who TFG tried to persuade were also amused.

[malaise]

30. He is such a fucking dunce

Thinking about it hurts

[comebackagain]

35. He should have admitted his failure long ago

What politicians say is always inconsistent