Trump To Be Reinstated As POTUS?

[RiverDog]

One more DJT thread.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to read something like this, but I was nevertheless astounded when I read this article:

Charles C.W. Cooke, a senior reporter for National Review, said he had confirmed the New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman's reporting on the subject.

"Haberman's reporting was correct," he wrote. "I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he - along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally - will be 'reinstated' to office this summer."

He added: "Trump is trying hard to recruit journalists, politicians, and other influential figures to promulgate this belief - not as a fundraising tool or an infantile bit of trolling or a trial balloon, but as a fact."

While the NYT has a definite liberal bias and the report could be attributed to the bloodthirsty Democrats looking to keep their boogey man alive and their base motivated, the National Review is a conservative publication. The author noted above, Charles C.W. Cooke, is described by The Atlantic as "perhaps the most confident defender of conservatism younger than George Will" and "a principled conservative who is allergic to anything resembling groupthink."

Assuming the story is true, that Trump actually believes that he will be reinstated as POTUS this summer, there's only two explanations for a belief in such a thing: He's either completely ignorant of the Constitution as there are no provisions for the reinstatement of an elected official following a certified election, OR he is mentally ill, suffering from a textbook case of schizophrenia.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't think the "or" belongs in your last sentence. I think both are true, along with hoping to actually ignite a civil war from which he thinks he may make some personal gain, either by actually regaining power or somehow negating the criminal and civil investigations he's now under. He's desparate and delusional. And dangerous as hell.

[Aseahawkfan]

Are you posting this as news for shock post value? C'mon now, this is tabloid type of news.

[RiverDog]

Are you posting this as news for shock post value? C'mon now, this is tabloid type of news.

It would be tabloid-type news if it weren't for the fact that the story was confirmed by not only an independent source, but a source with impeccable conservative credentials. That aspect is what really caught my eye. I've become accustomed to seeing this type of trash in the New York Times, but not in William Buckley's National Review. I thought it extraordinary, and felt it was worth a discussion.

And to CBob, I agree with you and should have listed my question with an and/or as I, too, feel that he is both completely ignorant of the Constitution and past precedents as well as being a textbook schizophrenic.