# Post ts_110846281999226021 - Post ID: `ts_110846281999226021` - Platform: Truth Social - Posted: 2023-08-07T03:47:15.387Z (UTC) - Deleted: no - Repost: no - Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_110846281999226021 - Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_110846281999226021/analysis - Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/ts_110846281999226021.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording) ## Post text > A MUST WATCH! Mark Levin: “We’ve had contentious Presidential Elections in the past…I mean really contentious…” ## What the media says **Video transcript** (9:12), transcribed automatically, so names and numbers may be wrong. Speakers aren't identified, so a voice in it may not be his: > History is lost on prosecutors, it's lost on all these debate shows, it's lost among lawyers who talk about January 6th, "Oh, it was an insurrection." No, it wasn't. We've had contentious presidential elections in the past, I mean really contentious. Some have almost led to civil wars, one did. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and his chosen vice presidential pick, Aaron Burr, tied for first place. Because back then, the ballots were separate for president and vice president, even though they might run in the same party. And it was 73 to 73 electors, due to a communication error among Democratic Republican electors, or a Burr led conspiracy depending on whom you believe. In other words, Burr was disloyal to Jefferson. Jefferson was really running against Adams at the time, but he only got 65 electoral college votes. So the first of only two times in American history, the election went to the House of Representatives. They had over 30 votes back and forth, and back and forth, the House was to choose the next president, Alexander Hamilton had enormous power. He disliked Jefferson immensely, but he hated Aaron Burr. So finally what happens is Alexander Hamilton, of course he was the first Treasury Secretary, he turned the tide by lobbing his fellow Federalists to throw their support to Jefferson. A couple years later, the famous duel that took place between Burr and Hamilton, where Burr killed Hamilton and then Burr fled the country. It seems a little more contentious than what took place on January 6th in the last election, but there's more here. Let's take a look. 1824, this was a doozy. There were four candidates, they were all the Federalist party, had dissolved, they were all Democrat Republicans. Then there was Andrew Jackson, you might recall, the hero of the war of 1812. He won the popular vote by fewer than 39,000 votes. Captured 99 electoral votes. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, he took 84 electoral votes, came in second, 41 votes, went for William Crawford, he was the Treasury Secretary, and 37 for the House Speaker, Henry Clay. So no candidate earned a majority of the electoral votes. The election again went to the House of Representatives. Clay was eliminated, he was the lowest vote-getter. Only three candidates can be considered, but the House still controlled. After a month of back and forth negotiations, it went on and on. Henry Clay's supporters threw their weight behind John Quincy Adams, even though he had gotten less votes than Jackson, less electoral college votes than Jackson. So Adams would become president and he would choose Henry Clay as his Secretary of State. Soon after his inauguration, this enraged Andrew Jackson. He resigns from the Senate, he called it a corrupt bargain, he said the whole election was a fraud, and then he would go back and run again the next time around and he would defeat Adams. But this almost led, almost led to a civil war. Then 1860, presidential election wasn't just contentious, as is pointed out, it tore the nation apart. Abraham Lincoln got about 39% of the popular vote. He was running against Senator Stephen Douglas, the Democrat from Illinois, they were both from Illinois actually. Also, running for president was John Breckenridge, as well as John Bell of Tennessee. Lincoln won, as I said, about 39% of the vote, but took most of the electoral college votes in the North and California and Oregon. Breckenridge won the electoral votes in most of the South, along with Maryland, Delaware. Bell won Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia, Douglas captured only Missouri, despite finishing second in the popular vote. You had a real mess. Just weeks after Lincoln's victory, South Carolina voted to secede. Six more southern states followed, forming the Confederate States of America in February 1861, and they elected Democrat Jefferson Davis as their president. I would say that was pretty contentious, America, but it also gave us Abraham Lincoln. Here's the biggest, 1876. Democrat Governor Samuel Tilden of New York won 250,000 more votes in the popular vote than Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican. He also got 19 more electoral college votes, but Tilden was still one electoral vote, one, short of the required 185 majority, and 20 votes remained uncounted. In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, why? Because their votes were too close to call. Each party accused the other of fraud. And yet in Oregon, one elector was declared illegal and replaced with controversial results. So you had a crisis here, the greatest electoral crisis in American history. And threats of another Civil War was 1876. So what happened here? Congress established a 15-member commission of senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices. So they said, you know, we can't free this out. Let's have a commission. So this is about as far as from the popular vote in the electorate as you can get. But keep something in mind. Congress is making all these decisions. Not a Department of Justice, not a prosecutor. In every one of these cases where fraud is alleged, where there's lobbying, where there's pressure on state legislatures, and so forth and so on, it's the give and take of politics. And Congress has the final say under the Constitution. Congress and nobody else. So they set up this 15-member commission of senators, congressmen, Supreme Court justices, seven Republicans, seven Democrats, one independent, ultimately to decide the election. After that swing vote turned to Hayes, that one controversial elector goes to Hayes. Hayes, even though he is 20 Electoral College votes behind, even though he got 250,000 less votes than did Tilden, it goes to Hayes. And so what does the commission say? Well, the swing guy went for Hayes. We'll give the other 19 Electoral College votes to Hayes. So the commission picks the president, Rutherford B. Hayes, who had the less popular vote, the less Electoral College vote, and they threw the 20 Electoral College votes remaining to Hayes. And after the Democrats, they said, you know what, we don't have to put up with this. We're going to filibuster this and block the official vote count that's going to take place. So what did they do after that? Well, they met at a hotel in Washington in February 1877, and they worked out a compromise. The Democrats would accept Hayes' victory, provided that Hayes removed all federal troops from the South. The compromise consolidated Democrat control of the region, the South, effectively ended Reconstruction, reversing the gains that African-Americans had made during the post-Civil War era. So the Democrats not only did that, they undermined the efforts that had been undertaken by a Republican president earlier, Ulysses S. Grant, to send the U.S. Army into the South to destroy the Klan. All that changed as a result of the 1876 election. Now, later, they'd pass the statute to try and work all these things out. But it's amazing. Nobody was indicted, Mr. Producer. Nobody was charged with anything. It's just incredible that we have the election of 2000. Al Gore, George W. Bush, all came down to Florida, a couple of hundred votes. Al Gore brings the first lawsuit, and it becomes litigation hell. Different districts throughout the state, forum shopping by both sides, trying to find judges that would uphold this part of the law, that part of the law. Meanwhile, the radical left-wing Democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court steps in and keeps changing the law, changing the law, changing the law to try and get Gore over the finish line. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and says that's enough. That's enough. The voting has to stop at some point. The Supreme Court of Florida can't keep changing the rules. They are destroying one person, one vote, the entire concept. And so George Bush winds up being the winner. And he wins the Electoral College by five votes. He also lost the popular vote by over half a million votes. That was a very contentious election, and we all know it. ## Media - video: https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/110/846/281/544/344/760/original/4628fd4b1b7e0f29.mp4 ## Engagement - Likes: 10,759 - Reposts: 3,251 - Replies: 321 - Views: unknown - Metrics collected: 2026-02-01T01:19:51.403Z (UTC) # Analysis _Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-03-20T07:01:48.457Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._ ## Summary Post-arraignment supply-seeking and narrative inoculation via proxy amplification. Trump shares a Mark Levin clip at 11:47 PM EDT (authentic late-night timing) days after his federal arraignment on January 6 charges. The truncated Levin quote — "We've had contentious Presidential Elections in the past…I mean really contentious…" — functions as a rhetorical tease that normalizes the contested-election narrative without Trump directly asserting it, maintaining legal evasiveness while propagating the message. The post is the third in a same-day Levin sequence (promo, watch, share clip), consistent with authentic viewing-and-reacting behavior. Psychologically, this represents narcissistic injury management through proxy validation: the indictment wound is metabolized by outsourcing the vindication argument to a credentialed media ally while Trump retains curatorial authority. Defense mechanisms are rationalization (Levin provides intellectual scaffolding) and displacement (message carried by ally). The imperative "MUST WATCH" signals group membership obligation. Epistemic closure mechanics are present but mild in isolation; significant as one node in a documented post-indictment amplification cluster. No danger indicators, dehumanizing language, or cognitive markers of note. Clinically unremarkable individually; pattern-consistent with documented post-indictment coping repertoire. ## Psychological & Rhetorical Analysis ### Authorship Attribution **Local Time Assessment:** In August 2023 Trump was based at Bedminster, NJ (his summer residence). EDT = UTC−4. The post timestamps at **11:47 PM EDT on August 6**, placing this squarely in his documented late-night posting window. This is also a direct follow-up to his earlier 8 PM promo for Levin's Fox News appearance ("Watch Mark Levin tonight on FoxNews, 8:00 P.M."), confirming the content sequence: he watched the show, clipped a segment, and posted before midnight. ALL CAPS imperative ("A MUST WATCH!"), truncated informal quote, no boilerplate or event announcement structure — all consistent with authentic Trump. **Confidence: High.** Estimated authenticity score: 0.82. --- ### Contextual Frame Posted within days of Trump's arraignment on four federal charges (August 3) related to the January 6 election interference case, this post is best understood as **narrative inoculation**. Rather than directly asserting the stolen-election claim himself — a legally sensitive posture given the pending case — Trump deploys Mark Levin as a proxy carrier. The truncated Levin quote ("We've had contentious Presidential Elections in the past…I mean really contentious…") functions as a rhetorical tease: the listener is invited to complete the implied argument (therefore this one is not unprecedented, therefore the charges are political). The ellipsis is doing significant work. --- ### Level 1: Dispositional Traits - **Low Agreeableness** (antagonism via ingroup/outgroup framing implicit in the Levin selection) - **High Extraversion** (assertive, imperative register: "MUST WATCH") - **Low Openness** (narrowly amplifying a single ideologically aligned voice; information ecosystem closure) - **Moderate Neuroticism** (post-arraignment anxiety managed via narrative reinforcement) --- ### Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations **Dominant motive: Validation/Supply-seeking.** The post does not argue — it amplifies. This is a characteristic adaptation under legal stress: outsource the contested reality claim to a credentialed ally, harvesting the validation returns (followers who echo "MUST WATCH") without incurring the direct legal exposure of stating it himself. Agency motive expressed through narrative control rather than direct assertion. **Schema revealed:** Others (media allies) are instrumentalized as validation amplifiers. Truth is defined by who says it, not what is evidenced. --- ### Level 3: Narrative Identity - **Protagonist role:** Off-stage in this post; Trump cedes the speaking role to Levin while retaining curatorial authority ("MUST WATCH" = "I have screened this and endorse it") - **Narrative sequence:** Redemption arc implied — contentious elections of the past were survived/resolved, implying this one will be too (setback → comeback) - **Identity claim:** "I am the man whose vindication is being articulated by serious people" - **Contrasting other:** Unstated but structurally present — those prosecuting him are recast as historically ignorant about election contestation --- ### Level 4: Clinical Indicators **Narcissistic dynamic:** Supply-seeking and narcissistic injury management. The indictment represents an acute narcissistic wound; this post is one in a cluster of validation-seeking behaviors (amplifying sympathetic voices, demanding judge recusal, framing indictments as "Fake"). This is consistent with **supply-procurement behavior** following severe narcissistic injury. **Defense mechanisms:** - **Rationalization** (primary): Levin's commentary provides intellectual scaffolding for the contested-election belief system - **Displacement** (secondary): The direct assertion is displaced onto Levin, reducing Trump's direct exposure while preserving the message - **Projection** (structural): The "contentious election" framing implicitly projects the chaos of January 6 onto a normalized historical pattern **No acute cognitive markers** in this very brief post. Complexity is extremely low by design rather than deficit — this is a media amplification post, not a composed statement. --- ### Rhetorical & Propaganda Techniques - **Appeal to authority:** Levin presented as decoder ("He gets the Fake Indictments…better than anyone" — per same-day post) - **Strategic truncation:** The ellipsis teases without committing; viewer must watch to get the argument, increasing engagement - **Imperative framing:** "MUST WATCH" — directive rather than persuasive; assumes compliance - **Epistemic closure mechanics:** Consuming Levin's content is framed as an obligation of group membership - **Reality distortion (structural):** The post normalizes contested election narrative without making a falsifiable claim — legally and rhetorically evasive No dehumanizing language, no violent imagery in this post. --- ### Gaslighting & Reality Distortion Mild. The broader pattern (of which this is one node) constitutes a sustained epistemic closure campaign — followers are channeled toward an enclosed media ecosystem (Levin, Fox) that confirms the stolen-election narrative. No direct DARVO in this post, but the cumulative effect of this amplification cluster is reality distortion by curation. --- ### Danger Assessment **None** for this specific post. It is media amplification without eliminationist language, mobilization call, or target identification. Within the broader posting cluster (the threatening "I'm coming after you" post was days earlier), this represents the softer, narrative-reinforcement mode of operation. --- ### Fact Verification | Claim | Verdict | Evidence | |-------|---------|----------| | "We've had contentious Presidential Elections in the past" | **True** | Historically accurate: 1800 (Jefferson-Burr House vote), 1876 (Hayes-Tilden Electoral Commission), 1960 (Kennedy-Nixon disputed states), 2000 (Bush v. Gore Supreme Court intervention) are all documented examples of contested or highly contentious elections. | Overall Veracity: 100% ## Authorship Analysis **Self-Written** (score: 82%) ### Indicators - Late night post: 11:47 PM EDT, within documented authentic window - ALL CAPS imperative opener ('A MUST WATCH!') - Informal truncated quote with ellipsis - Direct continuation of same-day Levin promo (natural content sequence) - No polished grammar, event announcement, or aide-style formatting ## Psychological Profile ### State **Grandiose State** **Trigger:** Narcissistic Injury — Exposure (Federal arraignment on January 6 charges (August 3, 2023)) Sentiment: +0.30 ### Clinical **Malignant Narcissism:** - Narcissistic: 50% - Antisocial: 20% - Paranoid: 30% - Sadism: 0% **Defense Mechanisms:** - rationalization (neurotic) - displacement (immature) - projection (immature) **Cognitive Complexity:** - Complexity: 15% **Parasocial Techniques:** - Imperative directive ('MUST WATCH') positions follower compliance as obligatory - Selective curation creates information ecosystem dependency - Proxy amplification preserves leader as curator of truth ## Fact Checks (1) _The model's verdicts from 2026-03-20._ > We've had contentious Presidential Elections in the past **TRUE** Historically accurate: 1800 (Jefferson-Burr House vote), 1876 (Hayes-Tilden Electoral Commission), 1960 (Kennedy-Nixon disputed states), 2000 (Bush v. Gore Supreme Court intervention) are all documented examples of contested or highly contentious elections. Sources: General historical knowledge — no search required Overall Veracity: 100% ## Tags - media-amplification (90%) - election-fraud-narrative (80%) - supply-seeking (75%) - mark-levin (85%) - post-arraignment (90%) - proxy-argumentation (80%) - epistemic-closure (70%) - late-night-authentic (82%) ## That day _From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._ **Post-Arraignment Siege: Seventeen Posts Channel Legal Fury Into Systematic DOJ Delegitimization** Four days after his federal arraignment on January 6 charges, Trump posted seventeen times from Bedminster in a day consumed by fury at prosecutors and the justice system. A late-night cluster began with gloating over a soccer rival's public humiliation before shifting into defensive media-sharing, and by morning the posts escalated into sustained attacks on Jack Smith, the presiding judge, and the DOJ itself — which he rechristened the "Department of Injustice." Brief detours into golf congratulations, bacon prices, and foreign policy never broke the gravitational pull of the indictment. A notable error — misnaming a key congressional witness "Keven" instead of Devon Archer — was the day's clearest cognitive flag. Full digest for 2023-08-07: https://trump.fm/date/2023-08-07/analysis ## Citation - APA: Trump, D. J. (2023, August 7). A MUST WATCH! Mark Levin: “We’ve had contentious... [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_110846281999226021 - MLA: Trump, Donald J. "A MUST WATCH! Mark Levin: “We’ve had contentious..." Truth Social, 7 Aug. 2023. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_110846281999226021. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026. - Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "A MUST WATCH! Mark Levin: “We’ve had contentious...," Truth Social, August 7, 2023, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_110846281999226021. ## For agents - Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt - API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json - MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth) - This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_110846281999226021 - Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_110846281999226021 - All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_110846281999226021 - Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2023-08-07 - The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_110846281999226021.md?analysis=false _Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._