What has he done, specifically, that has never been done in US history?

Curious how much the administrations, actions and policies of the previous 44 presidents were so different than Trump's.

Well it depends which specific charges we are talking about. But lets look at the "insurrection"
It isn't that Trump did anything that has never been done before, it is more that he combined all those things. That is what I meant when I said we had never seen in US history before.

However if we are looking at the classified documents case then I cannot think of another time a former president had classified material and refused to give it back.

If we are talking about tax law violations then I would probably agree there isn't anything real original there.

Well it depends which specific charges we are talking about. But lets look at the "insurrection"
It isn't that Trump did anything that has never been done before, it is more that he combined all those things. That is what I meant when I said we had never seen in US history before.

However if we are looking at the classified documents case then I cannot think of another time a former president had classified material and refused to give it back.

If we are talking about tax law violations then I would probably agree there isn't anything real original there.

Why should he give it back if he had authority to keep said docs?  The left would take the return of the docs as an admission of guilt.

Yeah, nobody who became president ever committed insurrection against their government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

Why should he give it back if he had authority to keep said docs?  The left would take the return of the docs as an admission of guilt.

Hahaha, that's a good one. Apples and oranges of course but still quite funny

A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former
President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump
legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago
this month.

The 10-year-old court ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman
Jackson, rejected arguments by a conservative watchdog group that sought
access to dozens of tapes recorded by Mr. Clinton and historian Taylor Branch
during his administration.

“What it highlights is that under the law, and the Justice Department’s prior legal
positions, if Clinton had the tapes, they are presumably personal,”
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told The Washington Times. His group
filed an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking the Clinton recordings.

You didn't explain why they are different. 

What was the instigating situation that resulted in the break from England?  Was not the monarchy our government?  Did we not commit treason, insurrection and any number of other crimes by refusing to comply with the government's laws and orders?

I see why you are trying to make light of it, since it proves you made a completely false statement.  Saying "apples and oranges" is not a convincing argument, since you failed to explain why they are not the same.

But, that's you being you...

Fair enough,
It is apples and oranges because the founding fathers of the USA didn't go on to become leaders in Britain. Those people committed legal violations under British law, not under American law, they didn't commit treason against they country they were becoming a part of when they fought for independence.
 
To be comparable Trump would need to commit insurrection against the USA and then go on to form a new country. Trump is trying to lead a country that he allegedly committed insurrection against, thus violating American law, thus not comparable. Funny on the surface but inch deep intellectually speaking. 

I thought this would have been more obvious to someone with your intellect but hey, we all miss things sometimes.

That's the weakest explanation for insurrection/not insurrection I've ever seen.

You're basically saying if the insurrection is successful, then it's not insurrection -- they overthrew their government.  Only those insurrectionists who fail are insurrectionists in name and deed because they are able to be tried under the government they rebelled against.

Maybe go look up the definition of insurrection and try again?

It is also plainly obvious.
After the war for independence Britain had no jurisdiction in America, thus any claims as to insurrection under British law would not be applicable. Insurrection against Britain would not disqualify the founding fathers from serving in an American government because they did not commit insurrection against America.

insurrection
noun
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:
armed insurrection

I guess you ignored my advice to look up the definition.  So, here's a clue:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insurrection

Please show me where anything you said applies to the actual English definition of "insurrection."

There doesn't need to be a reckoning after hostilities cease in order to decide if an insurrection occurred. 

Notice the word "attempt".  Let me know if that doesn't make it crystal clear.

You really think the 14th amendment would apply to the founding fathers? You are trying to use a general definition and while you are technically correct, it is also completely irrelevant.

The issue facing Trump is insurrection against the USA, not against a foreign country. The founding fathers didn't commit insurrection against the USA.
Let me reference the 14th amendment for you so you understand why this is an issue and why your dictionary definition is inapplicable.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

In other words, Trump shall not be a President (of the USA) if he committed insurrection against the USA unless congress votes by 2/3rds to override.

Apples and oranges.

No, you're trying to argue a distinction that doesn't have a difference.

insurrection has a purpose:  "to defeat their government and take control of their country"

If the insurrectionists succeed in their purpose, then, by definition, the government they rebelled against may or may not still exist as it was before.  However, the insurrectionists will have taken control of their country.

And why do you think our founders committed insurrection against a foreign country?  Are you that ignorant of the birth of the US.  We began as 13 British colonies, and the government of the colonies was the British Monarchy.  The government our founders pushed back against was not "foreign."  It was our own government -- as colonists under British rule.

No different than Canada.  They are a Constitutional Monarchy, and although they have control over most of their country's affairs, Britain still controls their foreign policy.

I guess you'd call Great Britain a "foreign counrty" to Canada, too?  You'd be wrong.

Country can be defined as a nation or state, a land, or a people.  Be careful how you use 'country' in your arguments.

Their plan works. Anyone who calls out the cheating is labeled as an insurectionist.

Anyone who takes steps to show evidence is labeled an insurectionist.

Then charge said people for insurection.

Thus cheating can go on forever.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Surely you understand that there are differences between legal definitions and colloquial or dictionary definitions right?

Trying to say other figures have done what Trump did before and using the founding fathers as an example is a nonsensical comparison. The founding fathers didn't commit insurrection against the USA thus not comparable to what Trump is being accused of. There is no simpler way than that to put it.

That's not what you said:

"It isn't that Trump did anything that has never been done before, it is more that he combined all those things. That is what I meant when I said we had never seen in US history before."

Now you're changing it to "The founding fathers didn't commit insurrection against the USA," even after I proved that's not a required element of an insurrection.

Unless you've been studying up on 17th century laws in Great Britain and jurisdictional disputes among the colonies established by GB, what you have to say about legal versus dictionary definitions doesn't interest me.  You made the claim they are different, but just like you did at the beginning of this, you failed to explain what the differences are and where we can find sources for your assertions.

Face it, you posted an opinion that wasn't true, and now you're just digging that hole deeper with every comment!