So the Soviet-style show trial began today. I didn't watch it. I don't intend to watch it. I'm pretty certain I can tell folks what they'll say and win most bets for accuracy. These are not serious people in this so-called "committee". They are not seeking truth. This is just a continuation of what they began from the moment Trump came down that escalator to announce his candidacy for POTUS. They lied about it being an insurrection. When has there ever been an insurrection without firearms? Can't recall any. Of course, we can regard their behavior since Trump threw his hat into the ring, but "coup" is a more appropriate appellation for what the lying leftists of the Democrat party have been doing.
It's amazing...though it shouldn't be given the character of the left...how they were keen on defending the rights of morons to burn, loot and murder for most of the summer of 2020, including direct assaults on government buildings, law enforcement vehicles and of course personnel and dare to label that as some sort of Constitutionally protected right, while pretend a few hundred agitated voters getting out of hand at the Capitol is worth this kind of waste of government money. These rat bastards should be doing the people's business and we are in no way served by this charade.
The saddest part...at least so far...there's no telling how far these weasels will go to hang Trump or his people...is my fear that it's not enough to be the last straw for any who would normally NOT vote GOP. Indeed, this whole thing is the result of all those who refused to vote for Trump in the last election. This bullshit hearing may be enough to distract the incredibly stupid from keeping in mind just how badly the country was harmed by allowing Biden to take the White House.
It's grating to hear a moron like Dan pretend modern OR traditional conservatism (not much difference between the two that a fool like Dan is capable of pointing out) is a threat to the nation given what we have suffered since Biden was sworn in. From my engagement with fools on the internet, there are a lot of Dans out there. That's a serious problem for this nation, its culture and of course its people. For those idiots, it's as if they have a death wish.
And now the brain-cell free people they supported are again proving their incompetence and their deceit and their evil intent. Given how all attempts to date intended to destroy Trump have failed, it's a safe bet these shit-for-brains Dems will fail yet again with his incredible waste of time and money. They could drop the whole thing, release all those who did next to nothing but stand in or near the capitol and the consequences would not at all involve any negative consequences to anyone, except for when the GOP regains power in Congress come November. But that's going to happen anyway.
Here's what the truth is: there was no insurrection. There was a dust-up by pissed off people who got out of hand. Nothing was burned. Destruction was minimal, and the only people really hurt were the pissed off people. The lies of the left can't change that. They can only influence the stupid who put them in power in the first place and did so by cheating, fraud and abuses of power. Should they prevail, those things will only worsen. It's the only way they can attain, regain and/or maintain power.
Thursday, June 09, 2022
Oh Look!! A Kangaroo!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Marshal...
"there was no insurrection. There was a dust-up by pissed off people who got out of hand. Nothing was burned. Destruction was minimal, and the only people really hurt were the pissed off people."
Reality...
"One officer lost the tip of his right index finger. Others were smashed in the head with baseball bats, flag poles and pipes. Another lost consciousness after rioters used a metal barrier to push her into stairs as they tried to reach the Capitol steps during the assault on Jan. 6.
“We don’t have to hurt you — why are you standing in our way?” one rioter told the officer as he helped her to her feet, according to court documents. She tried to regroup, but blacked out while making an arrest hours later. Doctors determined she had a concussion...
The Capitol assault resulted in
one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
About 140 officers — 73 from the Capitol Police and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington — were injured, the departments have said. They ranged from bruises and lacerations to more serious damage such as concussions, rib fractures, burns and even a mild heart attack.
"...If you’re a cop and get into a fight, it may last five minutes, but these guys were in battle for four to five hours,” said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit that advises departments across the country on management and tactics.
“You would be hard-pressed to find another day in history like this,” he said, “when the police encountered this level of violence in one event.”
The horror of the siege — which officers have described as “medieval” because of brute hand-to-hand combat and the use of blunt objects as weapons..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-officer-injuries.html
"I have officers who were not issued helmets prior to the attack who have sustained brain injuries. One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs. One officer is going to lose his eye, and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake."
https://www.newsweek.com/capitol-police-union-reveals-cops-suffered-brain-injuries-loss-eye-after-pro-trump-riot-1564993
No one was really injured? That's not what a bunch of cops are telling you.
Which will it be? "Alternative facts" or reality?
Seriously: Get your news from real journalists, not "rightwingbeanie.org/pos/snapmonk... turdleboop/orrg.net"
From fbi.gov
"The violence and destruction of property at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6 showed a blatant and appalling disregard for our institutions of government and the orderly administration of the democratic process. The FBI does not tolerate violent extremists who use the guise of First Amendment-protected activity to engage in violent criminal activity. The destruction of property, violent assaults on law enforcement officers, and imminent physical threats to elected officials betray the values of our democracy. "
So law enforcement officers testify to the harm and damage done on that day. The FBI testifies to it. But Marshal says that it was nothing. Who should rational people believe?
Here's what the truth is: you didn't watch the hearings because you don't want to see what happened. You constantly demand that people provide you with evidence, but you cover your eyes and ears when evidence is presented. You don't want to see right-wing thugs pummeling police officers, so you don't look at it.
"Here's what the truth is: you didn't watch the hearings because you don't want to see what happened."
Are you kidding? We've been seeing videos of what happened since it happened. What you're watching in the hearings is Trump-hating spin of what those images represent. What the truth of that day is isn't going to come out in what is no more than "Trump Impeachment #3". If you fakes cared about getting to the truth, your lying masters wouldn't have dismissed with House rules in assembling this kangaroo court and Jim Jordan and Jim Banks would be on the panel. It's supposes to be bi-partisan and it's all Dems with two virulent Trump-hating Republicans. Truth? Don't make me laugh. You people don't care about truth.
June 10, 2022 at 8:03 AM
https://www.bluesheepdog.com/2016/02/08/perfs-30-guidelines-for-law-enforcement-are-misguided/
https://www.bluesheepdog.com/2016/02/15/police-executive-research-forum-misguided-guidelines-part-ii/
https://www.bluesheepdog.com/2016/02/27/police-executive-research-forum-misguided-guidelines-ugly/
"...and the only people really hurt were the pissed off people."
By "really hurt", I would include "dead". Indeed, I would submit that no degree of injury more accurately fits "really hurt" than does "dead". Two women died as a result of Capitol PD behavior. Neither were legitimate threats to what should have been professional people organized in a professional manner to do a job only professionals are supposed to be tasked with doing.
"The Capitol assault resulted in one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
This is what's known to honest people as "spin". Hyperbole in describing events like these is purposeful, and here it's to demonize as strongly as possible political opponents and their followers.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/12/2000-cops-injured-in-2020-riots-in-nyc-la-houston-and-more-police-group-says/
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2020/11/30/police-chief-association-releases-jawdropping-numbers-of-injured-officers-during-n2580844
https://www.citizensjournal.us/these-are-the-police-officers-shot-during-the-riots/
https://nypost.com/2020/09/26/nypd-line-of-duty-injuries-soar-amid-violent-anti-police-protests/
So despite the number of injured cops on Jan 6, to pretend it's the worst ever is rank bullshit and only a Trump-hater would play that game. Honest people don't need such hyperbole in order to feel outrage that cops were attacked, and that includes reports of people incited by unnecessary flash bang grenades hurled into their midst by cops.
So my links above clearly show other instances that rational, honest people would say were far worse examples of police injuries (especially given "dead" ranks among those injuries) resulting from "peaceful protests". More damage, more injured and dead and more looting as well as longer lasting violence in the name of "free speech". That's how perverse you lefties are.
The initial three links at the top of this comment is in response to this guy:
""...If you’re a cop and get into a fight, it may last five minutes, but these guys were in battle for four to five hours,” said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit that advises departments across the country on management and tactics.
“You would be hard-pressed to find another day in history like this,” he said, “when the police encountered this level of violence in one event.”"
...while the rest clearly demonstrate how easy it is to rebut this final statement. Clearly, there have been worse days with worse violence against cops than this disturbance.
June 10, 2022 at 8:57 AM
""The violence and destruction of property at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6 showed a blatant and appalling disregard for our institutions of government and the orderly administration of the democratic process. The FBI does not tolerate violent extremists who use the guise of First Amendment-protected activity to engage in violent criminal activity. The destruction of property, violent assaults on law enforcement officers, and imminent physical threats to elected officials betray the values of our democracy. ""
The FBI tolerated far, far worse following the far more violent, destructive and deadly "peaceful protests" of the summer of 2020. Those at the top of the FBI hierarchy have clearly established themselves as partisan, and it's absolutely shameful what they've become. Just like cops under Dem mayors, the rank and file FBI agents are victims of leftism as well.
"So law enforcement officers testify to the harm and damage done on that day. The FBI testifies to it. But Marshal says that it was nothing. Who should rational people believe?"
Rational people...people about whom Dan knows absolutely nothing...believe what is obvious: This committee is bullshit partisan hackery. It's Trump-haters in our government abusing their positions to attack their political opponents...something Dan only pretends to oppose.
...while the rest clearly demonstrate how easy it is to rebut this final statement. Clearly, there have been worse days with worse violence against cops than this disturbance.
You didn't actually read those links did you? Most of them deal with the total number of police injured over a period of a couple months at thousands of different protests. None of them describes a single incident that compares to what happened on January 6, 2021.
By the way, there were thousands of arrests made at those protests, so maybe you could stop your whining about the January 6th rioters being treated unfairly simply because they also face consequences for their actions.
No Vinny. Unlike you guys, I read both the links I post as well as those you guys post. I posted them to demonstrate how hyperbolic and over the top you people are in describing Jan 6. Jan 6 pales in comparison to almost every one of them. For example, no cops died as a result of any injuries sustained on Jan 6. David Dorn was shot to death on the streets protecting against those of your ilk. The reality is trying to find a 2020 riot to which Jan 6 comes close.
By the way, of the "thousands" arrests made at those protests, most were released within days, if not hours. How many still languish in a jail for something as minor as the trespassing violations for which most of the protestors on Jan 6 were arrested?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The other thing you have to keep in mind in the protests against racial injustice where SOME people engaged in violence or destruction:
1. There is no evidence that I've seen that shows the violent protesters/looters were acting for liberal reasons (as opposed to opportunists using the chance to be bad).
2. I've seen no data that shows how many of these incidents of violence were provoked by the police, as opposed to protesters responding in violence up front.
3. NOT ONE SINGLE incident of those acts of violence were promoted, defended, encouraged or caused by a Democrat/liberal president.
Marshal...
"How many still languish in a jail for something as minor as the trespassing violations for which most of the protestors on Jan 6 were arrested?"
Again, oranges and rotten corpses.
1. Those protesting police brutality and on behalf of Black Lives were taking a stand against injustice. It's a real world problem that many in our society actually face, particularly in dealings with police. There is a root problem that is real in those protests, which were 99% peaceful. And once again, we have no data that I've seen that shows that those who DID loot or were violent were anything but opportunists, not part of the fight against oppression/injustice. You can point to NO data that supports that claim.
2. On the other hand, the useful idiots on January 6th were protesting about a "cause" based upon a false narrative - the election was NOT stolen, Pence should NOT have been hanged, Pelosi should NOT have been arrested. It was just a bunch of useful idiots being played with by and following the prompting of a Joker-like chaos and violence advocate to interfere with our actual free Republic.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not the one covering my eyes and ears.
"I'm not the one covering my eyes and ears."
I'm sure you desperately need to believe that in order to maintain your unjustified sense of moral superiority. Enjoy.
June 10, 2022 at 4:07 PM
"1. There is no evidence that I've seen that shows the violent protesters/looters were acting for liberal reasons (as opposed to opportunists using the chance to be bad)."
Oh. Perhaps Vinny was referring to you in his last comment.
But we well know what you mean when you say "There is no evidence that I've seen..." It means you don't look or you refuse to see. But more specifically to this comment, you need to prove the violent protesters and looters were NOT acting in tandem with those who stupidly believe the lie of police brutality. Given how many Dems look upon the looting and violence as "the voice of the unheard", and who paid or encouraged donations to for bail for these criminals, only "progressive" morons would pretend there's much difference. So at best, you have some of the "peaceful protesters"...that is, those who actually didn't personally destroy public and private property, loot stores (many owned by POCs), injure and murder cops...who gathered to protest the myth cops are targeting black people, and just a few "opportunists using the chance to be bad", and you expect rational people to believe the latter will affirm they had no real concern for the grievances of the former or any connection to them. Got it. You must mistake me for a leftist.
"2. I've seen no data that shows how many of these incidents of violence were provoked by the police, as opposed to protesters responding in violence up front."
Unlike Jan 6, you have no evidence ANY OF IT was provoked by police.
"3. NOT ONE SINGLE incident of those acts of violence were promoted, defended, encouraged or caused by a Democrat/liberal president."
Well, this is just a lie.
June 10, 2022 at 4:27 PM
"1. Those protesting police brutality and on behalf of Black Lives were taking a stand against injustice."
Protesting a myth isn't illegal, just stupid and self-deceptive. Violence in its name is a horror and makes the "protest" even less import for anyone to provide attention.
"2. On the other hand, the useful idiots on January 6th were protesting about a "cause" based upon a false narrative..."
There's far more evidence for a fraudulent election than there is for the myth of racist cops targeting black people. There are still info coming out with regard to the types of fraud which took place which, fortunately and to one degree or another, has led to changes to improve election integrity...changes which would be unnecessary were the election as pure as you lying lefties pretend it was.
The disturbance on Jan 6 is described by you liars as an assault on our democracy. A far greater assault took place in DC in May of 2020 and you asshats pretend it was nothing. We're now seeing threats and intimidation of federal justices, and you asshats would rather watch what amounts to a game show you call a hearing. The hearing itself is an assault on our democracy in both how it was put together (ignoring House rules for such) and in it's purpose to distract from the horror that is the Biden administration and all the damage he and your party have done to our democracy since he fraudulently won the election.
You guys are an absolute joke. Please. Stay the hell away from election ballots. Do it for your own kids, who will suffer greatly if we can't restore what you asshats have done to our democracy.
You constantly preach about God and morality, but you accuse others of having “a sense of moral superiority.”
You lecture about the rule of law, but refuse to accept the results of an election that withstood every legal challenge.
You defend the conduct of the first President in the history of the republic who tried to thwart the peaceful transfer power to his successor, but you accuse others of refusing to accept election results.
You constantly demand that others supply you with evidence, but you refuse to watch hearings where evidence is presented.
The hypocrite here is you.
Speaking of my family and loved ones, my daughter was just quoted in the NYT and Wall Street Journal for her scientific research. My son, who spent years in Taiwan teaching English and learning Mandarin, then more years in the Peace Corps in Albania teaching English and learning their language, Shqip... is back in the US doing grad school work learning about international development. (And don't get me started on the amazing lives of all our church's now adult children who are out doing amazing work to help the world be a better place - natural farming, teaching, UN, poets and artists, caregivers, social workers, etc, etc...)
The kids are doing all right for themselves and the world. Maybe you should worry more about yourself than people you know nothing about.
"A far greater assault took place in DC in May of 2020 and you asshats pretend it was nothing."
By all means, cite the names and allegiances of the people who've been found guilty of any of these alleged crimes that you're speaking of. Cite the Democrat and liberal political leaders who have encouraged violence.
When you are completely and totally unable to do that, Do the right thing and admit you have nothing.
Vinny,
"You constantly preach about God and morality, but you accuse others of having “a sense of moral superiority.”"
Be more accurate and specific. I accused YOU of having an UNJUSTIFIED SENSE OF MORAL SUPERIORITY. That's appropriate given your accusation I'm covering my eyes and ears. It implies you're the honest one taking in all the facts...as if all the facts are being presented by your Dem masters.
"You lecture about the rule of law, but refuse to accept the results of an election that withstood every legal challenge. "
Let's see...what's worse...covering eyes and ears or not looking or listening in the first place? "Every legal challenge" was not even heard. Of the 19 or so claims actually adjudicated in actual courts, about 15 were ultimately ruled in Trump's favor. And no, I'm not going to dig this out yet again for you. You're clearly covering your eyes and ears except to what you're told by your Dem masters.
"You defend the conduct of the first President in the history of the republic who tried to thwart the peaceful transfer power to his successor, but you accuse others of refusing to accept election results."
Which president was that? I don't recall any actions expended to "thwart the peaceful transfer of power" in any recent election. Maybe you can list those actions taken by whomever you have in mind and provide links I can study.
On the other hand, Trump's entire presidency was marred by attempts to remove him. Hillary still pretends the election was rigged against her (while Bernie insists she rigged the primary against him). Stacey Abrams still insists she was jobbed out of the Georgia gubernatorial election. The entire Dem party still insists there was "RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!!!" So I'm not "accusing" at all. I'm citing facts. Where are yours?
"You constantly demand that others supply you with evidence, but you refuse to watch hearings where evidence is presented."
Evidence of what? What did they prove? Anything? And by your questions I'll assume you watched the entire clown show. Did they ask any of the questions such as those posed in the following:
Your defense of Dem attempts to oust Trump and now destroy him and anyone who has ever supported him is the a defense of a true attempt to destroy our democracy. It wasn't Trump doing anything to harm it and it wasn't the protesters at the Capitol now treated far worse than their bad behavior warrants.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/06/what-the-january-6-committee-hearings-wont-cover/
June 11, 2022 at 12:11 PM
"The kids are doing all right for themselves and the world. Maybe you should worry more about yourself than people you know nothing about."
Nothing your kids are doing will leave them impervious the worst which can befall them if assholes like you aren't prevented from continuing your assault on our culture. While you morons bask in the glow of the Jan 6 committee circus, you're purposely using that joke to cover all the crap which have resulted from not re-elected a president who actually did things to benefit your kids. But as you prefer to keep your head jammed firmly up your own ass, you'll assure your kids you have no idea why they suffer.
June 11, 2022 at 12:43 PM
"By all means, cite the names and allegiances of the people who've been found guilty of any of these alleged crimes that you're speaking of."
Oh, that's hilarious. You're actually suggesting those assholes who burned, looted and murdered during the summer of 2020 riots were not leftists. Only leftists buy the lie of racist cops targeting blacks. Only leftists would use that lie as an excuse to enrich themselves. Since it's you insisting they had no relation to BLM or those who marched with them, it's up to you to prove it.
"Cite the Democrat and liberal political leaders who have encouraged violence."
Kamela Harris helped raise bail money for Minneapolis rioters. She also said this:
"They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not."
Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) called on liberals to fight in the streets against Trump and his supporters. Kaine’s son was arrested in antifa protests.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch called for supporters to march, bleed, and die in the streets to resist Trump
Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) has also called for unrest in the streets to pressure GOP officials who support the president. The other members of the Squad have also supported the rioters, also going so far as to pushing a fund to provide them with bail.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) threw gasoline on fires that were already burning by calling Republicans enemies of the state last week, which I guess is OK if they're not journalists from MSNBC or CNN.
The governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, turned down an offer from Washington to send federal officers in order to help get Kenosha under control.
In fact, Fifteen Democratic mayors had signed a letter addressed to Trump administration officials demanding the removal of federal agents from their cities or the cessation of impending deployments.
"When you are completely and totally unable to do that..."
Looks like I completely and totally did.
Let's see...what's worse...covering eyes and ears or not looking or listening in the first place? "Every legal challenge" was not even heard. Of the 19 or so claims actually adjudicated in actual courts, about 15 were ultimately ruled in Trump's favor. And no, I'm not going to dig this out yet again for you. You're clearly covering your eyes and ears except to what you're told by your Dem masters.
You don't have to dig that one out. I've seen it before, and I already know that those were pre-election cases challenging election procedures. None of them were challenges to the election results.
Which president was that? I don't recall any actions expended to "thwart the peaceful transfer of power" in any recent election. Maybe you can list those actions taken by whomever you have in mind and provide links I can study.
Or you could watch the hearings.
"You don't have to dig that one out. I've seen it before, and I already know that those were pre-election cases challenging election procedures. None of them were challenges to the election results."
A really thin response!!!
http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm
Look at the dates and you'll find a mix...some prior to the election and some after. But the dates don't matter to the point. They were all dealing with the 2020 election, either preemptively or responsively. Where the merits were presented for judgement, Trump/GOP won more than not by a solid majority. This should suggest to an honest person that all allegations adjudicated would most likely favor Trump to the same degree. The merits of the allegations is what matters. Without the merits being actually argued in court, one can't say the election results "withstood" ANY challenge, much less "every". There WAS NO CHALLENGE if the criticisms of the results weren't argued in court.
"Or you could watch the hearings."
Or maybe you could stop pretending you watched them, or watched them intently enough to assert they've proven what you desperately need to be true. If you had, it should be easy enough to provide. I've seen nothing in any report from anyone that suggests proof Trump did anything to interfere with the peaceful transition of power. I haven't even heard he trashed the place like the Clintons did on the way out. I'd expect it would be plastered all over the news. Thus far, zippo!
This should suggest to an honest person that all allegations adjudicated would most likely favor Trump to the same degree.
I've seen some pretty dumb claims about the election, but this one ranks right up there with the dumbest.
What this actually shows (assuming that it's accurate) is that the courts were not biased against Trump. When he made credible claims, he enjoyed some success.
The merits of the allegations is what matters.
Exactly! When Trump's claims had merit, he won. When they had no merit, he lost. That's how the law is supposed to work.
Without the merits being actually argued in court, one can't say the election results "withstood" ANY challenge, much less "every". There WAS NO CHALLENGE if the criticisms of the results weren't argued in court.
Nonsense. When a complaint is dismissed because it fails to allege a legal basis for the relief sought, that's a failed challenge. When the criticism of the results amounts to nothing more than “Wahh! Wahh! We lost and we're mad,” and the court dismisses the complaint, that's a failed challenge.
BTW, only the most absurd claims are dismissed without the motion to dismiss being argued in court.
Or maybe you could stop pretending you watched them, or watched them intently enough to assert they've proven what you desperately need to be true. If you had, it should be easy enough to provide. I've seen nothing in any report from anyone that suggests proof Trump did anything to interfere with the peaceful transition of power.
I haven't actually watched them: I watched it. Only one hearing has been broadcast so far. I'm going to watch the rest to see whether they have the evidence to back up the claims that were made in the opening statements. You should, too.
I haven't even heard he trashed the place like the Clintons did on the way out. I'd expect it would be plastered all over the news.
I think the news was probably more concerned with Trump's attempts to trash the Constitution and the Republic. I doubt that juvenile pranks would have gotten much coverage.
"What this actually shows (assuming that it's accurate) is that the courts were not biased against Trump. When he made credible claims, he enjoyed some success."
What this shows is just how few cases were actually adjudicated on the merits. Among them, Trump enjoyed great success. Two-thirds, as you know, is well over half. A two-thirds majority in any election or poll is considering a landslide. Yet, in the context of your claim, it indicates, if not outright proves, the absurdity of saying we saw an "election that withstood every legal challenge. " Among those challenges actually heard in court, not so much. Talk about "dumb claims"!!
"Exactly! When Trump's claims had merit, he won. When they had no merit, he lost. That's how the law is supposed to work."
Exactly!! Except in order to determine merit, the claims must be heard, not dismissed on technicalities and such and then have Trump-haters pretend we had an "election that withstood every legal challenge." Said another way, the vast majority of challenges were not accepted, which is the major complaint of those who sought relief at the Capitol.
"Nonsense. When a complaint is dismissed because it fails to allege a legal basis for the relief sought, that's a failed challenge."
Nonsense. It's a challenge not taken up by the courts. Keep in mind, the Trump campaign met with two major objections: The claim is too early to be brought about, and the claim was too late in being brought about. With being forced to hurry their attempts, fairness was out the window. That's true even if every claim would have turned out to be crap. The ability to plead cases was denied and as such the challenge to the election results were not heard. It would be far more honest to respond with that fact. "You can't claim the election was stolen because we didn't let you argue the point and present evidence to support it." THAT is how it went down. Flaws or errors can't be determined without looking.
"When the criticism of the results amounts to nothing more than “Wahh! Wahh! We lost and we're mad,” and the court dismisses the complaint, that's a failed challenge."
Only those happy with the Trump defeat represent the criticisms in this way, because they have no desire to learn Trump didn't lose at all. It's the same attitude we saw and continue to see with the Roe v Wade decision. Baby-killers don't care the ruling was crap, but only that it went their way. The same lie is at play here. You don't care about the challenges or why they weren't heard. You only care Trump isn't president. Four years of haters lying about Trump in order to get him out of office...to overturn a legit election...and rational people are expected to believe this election was on the up and up? We're not leftists, Vinny. We're too honest and intelligent to buy bullshit.
"BTW, only the most absurd claims are dismissed without the motion to dismiss being argued in court."
You mean like the absurd claim an incompetent boob hiding in his basement after 47 years of non-accomplishments won an election with 10-12 million more votes than Obama got? Only a Trump-hating leftist would refuse to dismiss so absurd a claim!!! Honest and rational people never will.
"I haven't actually watched them: I watched it. Only one hearing has been broadcast so far"
Oh, you got me there, Vinny!! I'm done in!!
"I think the news was probably more concerned with Trump's attempts to trash the Constitution and the Republic."
The news, like this committee, is more concerned with trying to find any way possibly to make suckers think Trump attempted to trash either the Constitution or the Republic. I've no doubt when you watch the hearings, you'll see that borne out, but won't have the honesty to recognize it. You'll accept everything your masters tell you and never consider there will be no cross examining by pro-Trump Republicans (or any other kind, for that matter), no hard questions asked of those who should be questioned and just a general shit-sandwich of kangaroo court. Those are the only kind the Dems put on.
"You would be hard-pressed to find another day in history like this,” he said, “when the police encountered this level of violence in one event.”
Pick one, May 26, 27, 28, 2020.
This certainly sounds worse to me.
"In the days after Floyd's murder, Minneapolis sustained extraordinary damage from rioting and looting in the resulting chaos—largely concentrated on a 5-mile (8.0 km) stretch of Lake Street south of downtown[24]—including the demise of the city's third police precinct building, which was overrun by demonstrators and set on fire.[27] At cost of $350 million,[28] approximately 1,300 properties in Minneapolis were damaged by the civil unrest,[29] of which nearly 100 were entirely destroyed.[30] Saint Paul suffered damages that totaled $82 million and affected 330 buildings, including 37 that were heavily damaged or entirely destroyed, mostly along the its University Avenue business corridor.[31] The ATF tracked 164 structure fires due to arson in the Twin Cities during the riots.[9][10]"
"A smaller group that broke away from the main protest breached the fence of the station parking lot, vandalized the building with graffiti, threw rocks and bottles at officers, broke a window of the building, and broke a window of an unoccupied police car. Some protesters tried to stop the vandalism, with a scuffle breaking out in the crowd.[24][27]
Recently elected city council member Jeremiah Ellison, who had participated in prior protests against the police after the killing of black men, advised the mayor to not interfere with those vandalizing police property, hoping to spare the surrounding neighborhood from further damage."
Damn, a government official encouraging the brazen destruction of city property. I guess that's AOK.
" In the afternoon, at an AutoZone store at East Lake Street and Minnehaha Avenue, across the intersection from the third police precinct station, a masked man carrying an umbrella and a hammer was recorded on video breaking windows and spray-painting graffiti which encouraged looting.[27][68] The man was identified by police as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.[69] The abrupt attack came during a mostly calm demonstration at the street intersection of the third police precinct station. Some protesters confronted the masked man and asked him to stop.[68] The situation near the third police precinct station worsened when a nearby Target store was extensively looted by a crowd of about 100 people.[70] Later in the evening, the same AutoZone store became the first building to be set on fire during the unrest.[68][71] Some protesters attempted to put out the AutoZone fire, while others celebrated and took selfies.[72]
Broken windows of an AutoZone store on East Lake Street in Minneapolis, May 27, 2020
Fatal shooting of Calvin Horton Jr. and other violence
Violence escalated by nightfall.[4][73] One mile (1.6 km) from the main protest site near the city's third police precinct building, Calvin Horton Jr., a 43-year-old man from Minneapolis, was fatally shot by a pawnshop owner who believed he was burglarizing his business.[4][73] Including Horton, five people were struck by gunfire in Minneapolis that night, but he was the only reported fatality."
"Looting and property destruction were widespread in Minneapolis that night.[74] The heaviest destruction, however, was in the vicinity of the third precinct station near Minnehaha Avenue and East Lake Street,[74] where the fire at an AutoZone store led to a series of other fires and looting at nearby stores.[4][73][71] Among the losses to fire that night was Midtown Corner, an under-construction, $30 million redevelopment project for 189 units of affordable housing, which was destroyed by fire after being torched. Across the street, the manufacturing facility for 7-Sigma, a local high-tech company, also suffered extensive fire damage and part of the factory building collapsed.[75] The response from firefighters in the area was delayed as crews required police escorts for protection from rioters.[24] The Minneapolis fire department responded to approximately 30 fires overnight.[71]
"Looting, which first began at the Target store near the third precinct police station, spread to a nearby Cub Foods grocery store, and to several liquor stores, pharmacies, and other businesses across the city."
Definitely, 1/6 was exponentially worse than 5/27/2020. No question about it.
Indeed, Craig. It's always fascinating to see how routinely the left, and Dan in particular, will so easily expose themselves as clowns and liars.
Keep in mind, the Trump campaign met with two major objections: The claim is too early to be brought about, and the claim was too late in being brought about. With being forced to hurry their attempts, fairness was out the window.
No. The Trump campaign faced one major objection: no evidence of fraud. Moreover, Trump knew that he had no evidence of fraud. His campaign lawyers and his attorney general told him there was no evidence of fraud. They told him he would lose in court and he did.
Watch the hearings.
Sorry, Vinny. That's just not true. There's a veritable cornucopia of evidence of fraud. The major stumbling block for the Trump campaign is an intentional choice to ignore as much of it as possible, then to falsely claim their is none.
I'd prefer to watch something with actual facts. If any arise from the hearings, I'll hear about it from honest news sources who aren't looking to defend Trump as they are the truth, whatever it is.
The problem you have is you're talking about a conspiracy theory and the problem with conspiracy theories is that they require such a suspension of disbelief.. You really think ALL of these people, all of these professionals, all of these republicans and regular people from across the United States, all these election officials from both parties, all these judges - including those appointed by GOP and by Trump himself - who are looking at these cases and dismissing them as frivolous... to think that ALL of these professional, experts and just regular people all SEE the "fraud" and yet are agreeing to cover it up... it's just irrational to the extreme. It's not believable precisely because it's crazy on a broad scale.
The problem you have is that you suffer from a plethora of problems which go far beyond just this issue. But as to this issue...
Your problem is you've never seriously looked into any claim made by anyone regarding election fraud or irregularities regarding the 2020 election (is the subject exclusively). You simply reject them all as unfounded without basis but your irrational hatred of a better man.
Your problem is you rely on the word of leftist masters to assure you there was no fraud or irregularities which could have altered the election results away from Trump's win, simply out of irrational animus toward Trump.
Your problem is you rely on the word of many who are responsible for making fraud easier and thus more likely.
Your problem is you pretend the prior four years of Democrat and Trump-hating attempts to overturn the 2016 election never happened and thus those who acknowledge those never ending attempts are absolutely justified in questioning any win by a Democrat against the very target of those attempts.
Your problem is only asshats like you use the term "conspiracy theory" with regard to legitimate and highly understandable concerns regarding election integrity during the 2020 election season. There needn't have been an organized, nationwide network of Democrat and Trump-hating assholes working in concert to result in a stolen election. Said assholes wouldn't have even had to communicate with each other in any way in order for enough of them to have succeeded in stealing the election. Democrats in particular have a long and storied history of election fraud. That, together with their actions throughout the Trump presidency, should have for honorable people in charge of such things justified heightened scrutiny of all claims and allegations brought forth, regardless of the timing of them or regardless of legal technicalities involved given the tight time-frame for submitting such claims.
Your problem is you pretend the 2016 election wasn't contested and questioned over concerns of legitimacy, with Trump's presidency long after referred to as "illegitimate". Good people with legitimate concerns are considered "conspiracy theorists" by the leftist assholes who engage in the same lamentations without legitimate basis. Typical leftist shit.
Your problem is the suspension of disbelief by dumbasses like you to believe the absurd claim the 2020 election was the most fair election ever. One has to be a real dumbf**k to give such a claim the time of day, yet you were more than eager to repeat that stupidity. There are still cases of fraudulence being uncovered!
Your problem is there have been scant few, if any, election fraud cases which were "frivolous" and dismissed as a result. Cases dismissed were NOT dismissed on that basis, but you prefer to parrot the party line because you aren't capable of rational thought.
Your problem is at this point in time, you choose to believe the "conspiracy theory" of white supremacy and it's involvement in the Jan 6 disturbance at the Capitol.
Your problem is rank stupidity and moral corruption.
The major stumbling block for the Trump campaign is an intentional choice to ignore as much of it as possible, then to falsely claim their is none.
Bullshit. Every allegation was investigated. They were investigated by the election officials who are legally responsible for administering elections and they were investigated by the Justice Department. Trump was repeatedly told that there was no evidence of widespread fraud and that specific claims—e.g., the suitcase full of ballots in Atlanta, Dominion software changing votes—were completely false.
Trump chose not to listen to the experienced election lawyers on his staff who told him that he had no case. He decided instead to listen to lawyers like Giuliani who were willing to spread the Big Lie shamelessly. He lost in court because he had no case.
I'll hear about it from honest news sources who aren't looking to defend Trump as they are the truth, whatever it is.
Like Fox News, which not only refused to broadcast the first hearing, but also broadcast its prime time lineup without commercials lest viewers switch to a channel that might tell them the truth.
Marshal...
"Your problem is you've never seriously looked into any claim made by anyone regarding election fraud or irregularities regarding the 2020 election "
THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
There IS nothing to look into because THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
There is nothing to treat seriously because THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
We KNOW that THERE'S NOTHING THERE because conservatives and Republicans and voting experts across the political spectrum have said so.
Trump's cases were dismissed from courts because THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
Rudy Guiliani was disbarred for bringing up frivolous cases because THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
The JUDGES that Trump appointed looked at these frivolous cases and said clearly, "THERE'S NOTHING THERE." Why did they do that? Because, THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
You're a laughingstock. You've been played for a fool by an idiot conman. Did you send money to Trump's "election defense fund..."? If so, you were swindled. Trump is getting rich and powerful because useful idiots are willing to believe in the invisible and conspiracy theories.
I don't know how to help you, Marshal. You are a believer in little brown fart-men sneaking around at night trying to take over the world. You can KNOW these fart-men are real because the MEDIA DOESN'T REPORT about them, and that's all the evidence you need.
You're out of touch with reality. You've been played for a fool and you just can't see it.
History is laughing and will continue to laugh at you. It's just sort of pathetic and I almost feel sorry for you.
More evidence...
"Your problem is you rely on the word of leftist masters to assure you there was no fraud or irregularities..."
"Leftist masters" like ultra conservative Liz Cheney? Like William Barr? Like Ivanka Trump? Like all the judges Trump appointed? Like all the GOP election counters who testified over and over again that these were clean elections??
You've gone made and are being played for a pathetic little fool by rich and powerful idiots.
I could feel more sympathy for you if Trump were actually a clever conman. But he's not. He's a certifiable idiot with deep and observable psychological problems and even so, he's fooled roughly 1/3 of the nation.
I guess it's quantifiable now how many idiots there are in the US. Just count the Trump supporters/defenders.
"They were investigated by the election officials who are legally responsible for administering elections and they were investigated by the Justice Department."
You mean like these election officials?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/elections-official-michigan-charged-ballot-tampering-83408408
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud
https://www.villagenews.com/story/2022/03/17/opinion/2020-presidential-election-proven-fraud-bribery-illegalities-cyber-hacking/69334.html
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/21/new-videos-capture-delaware-county-officials-hiding-evidence-of-alleged-election-fraud/
From your first story...
"An AP review of election fraud in Michigan and five other battleground states found that state officials identified a total of 56 potential instances of voter fraud in Michigan"
If it's true, this woman didn't affect the outcome of the election. Why? BECAUSE NO SIGNIFICANT FRAUD HAPPENED.
How do we know that?
Because it's one thing to have one off people changing one or two votes here and there. But these systems are checked and double checked. GOP and Democrats are watching the process. There is no significant chance to have sufficient voter fraud to change the election. That's the reality of it all.
We KNOW it happens in bits and pieces - plenty of GOP people have been caught engaging in it. But it would require a massive conspiracy to affect the outcome of an election and there is NO evidence to support that claim. You have nothing. You have a few outliers and then, by extension, you want to say that ALL (or a significant number) of these election watchers and experts and validators were involved in this conspiracy and the very fact that we can't FIND all the voter fraud IS EVIDENCE THAT THE FRAUD HAPPENED AND THE CONSPIRACY EXISTS@!!!! [frothing at the mouth, eyes rolling back, etc, etc].
You've got nothing to support a claim that massive election fraud happened and affected the election. If you had it, you'd provide it. You REALLLLLLY want to believe it so you definitely would provide it.
You ain't got it because no conspiracy happened.
Again, BARR, IVANKA, Liz Cheney and countless GOP faithful and even Trump loyalists have been clear that the "election was stolen" claim is stupidly false, something only useful idiots would believe.
Don't be a useful idiot.
Did you give money to Trump for this cause?
I noticed you didn't mention that one way or the other. What a maroon. The rich get richer and the stupid get ripped off and stepped on.
June 14, 2022 at 2:03 PM
"THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE."
I'm fluent in Dan-speak. Allow me to translate:
Nyuh uh!
Nyuh uh!
Nyuh uh!
Nyuh uh!
"We KNOW that THERE'S NOTHING THERE because conservatives and Republicans and voting experts across the political spectrum have said so."
Assertions aren't proof. You'd call this "a stupidly false and unsupported claim" if I tried to argue in this manner...and then you'd delete me.
"Trump's cases were dismissed from courts because THERE'S NOTHING THERE."
That's not why they were dismissed. Unless of course you can prove it. Provide links for each case...or any case...dismissed because "THERE'S NOTHING THERE". (Is that a legitimate legal term?)
"Rudy Guiliani was disbarred for bringing up frivolous cases..."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rudy-giuliani-disbarred/
I could find no evidence Rudy G was disbarred. I could only find one reference more recent than Aug 21. Nothing confirms disbarment, but only a suspension to practice in NY and I think possible Wash DC, though I'm not sure of the latter. As to the most recent reference, it both stated he was and then stated he wasn't, but referenced the suspension to practice. A suspension isn't disbarment. Clearly Dan says what he's told.
"The JUDGES that Trump appointed looked at these frivolous cases and said clearly, "THERE'S NOTHING THERE.""
Which judges were those and show me confirmation they dismissed on the merits of the allegations. I'll wait here while you don't.
"You're a laughingstock." ...says the clown.
"You've been played for a fool by an idiot conman."
I've not based my position on anything Trump has said. In the meantime, you swallowed like a whore that which Joe Biden jerked your way.
"Trump is getting rich and powerful because useful idiots are willing to believe in the invisible and conspiracy theories."
Really? How much has he made since losing so much personal wealth while president? In the meantime, how did all your Dem masters get so rich being "servants of the people"?
"I don't know how to help you, Marshal."
You don't know much of anything and I don't accept help from morons, anyway.
"You're out of touch with reality." ...says the guy who believes in "little brown fart-men sneaking around at night". Good gosh! What the hell is THAT???
"History is laughing..." ...says the guy who believes in "little brown fart-men sneaking around at night". Now it seems he believes "history" can laugh. I wonder what geography can do?
"I could feel more sympathy for you if Trump were actually a clever conman. But he's not. He's a certifiable idiot with deep and observable psychological problems and even so, he's fooled roughly 1/3 of the nation." ...says the guy who believes in "little brown fart-men sneaking around at night", there are more than two genders and that a man can really be a woman. Trump's marvelous track record as president belies any claim by a dumbass like you that he's an idiot. You've far more psychological problems than he'll ever had.
"I guess it's quantifiable now how many idiots there are in the US."
Given the horrific current state of our nation, that's confirmed the number of morons who refused to vote for Trump in the last election. And you, you sorry-assed shit-for-brains, actually did a post listing 10 reasons why voting for Biden was a better choice!!!
Re: Guiliani's disbarment:
Clearly, my memory was lacking. He was SUSPENDED, not barred. That doesn't help your case. From your Snopes link:
"The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court announced it was immediately suspending Rudy Giuliani’s law license, stating that
“There is uncontroverted evidence that
respondent [Guiliani]
communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts,
lawmakers and the public at large
in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.”
That he was SUSPENDED for making "demonstrably false and misleading statements" only confirms my point. The point was not that he was disbarred, but that he got into trouble for making stupidly false claims as idiots are wont to do to try to convince other idiots. It's just that lawyers can't do that and get away with it, at least in theory.
We ban (dismiss, outlaw, whatever the right word is) frivolous lawsuits for a reason.
Marshal...
"Which judges were those and show me confirmation they dismissed on the merits of the allegations. I'll wait here while you don't. "
YOU are the outlier. YOU are the one citing conspiracy theorists and insane notions. I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you truly believe these conspiracy theories can be proven, that's on you. The reality is that the courts, the media, election experts and Trump's own allies have dismissed the vast majority of Trump's claims about a "stolen election" or "widespread voter fraud." We know that's the reality because, if it WEREN'T the reality, Trump would still be president.
You want to claim that ALL these courts, election officials, election experts and Trump allies have been massively mistaken, you can prove it.
Tell you what: I have a little time and it's sort of fun. Here's one instance of a judge telling Trump's lawyers that their election lawsuits were frivolous:
"WASHINGTON, Aug 25 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday sanctioned Sidney Powell and other lawyers who sued in Michigan to overturn Democratic President Joe Biden's election victory over Donald Trump, and suggested they might deserve to lose their law licenses.
In a highly anticipated written ruling, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker in Detroit said the pro-Trump lawyers, including Powell and prominent litigator Lin Wood, should have investigated the Republican former president's voter fraud claims more carefully before filing what Parker called a "frivolous" lawsuit.
Parker, who dismissed the Michigan suit last December, formally requested that disciplinary bodies investigate whether the pro-Trump lawyers should have their law licenses revoked. The judge also ordered the lawyers to attend classes on the ethical and legal requirements for filing legal claims.
"This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process," Parker said in her decision, adding that the case "was never about fraud - it was about undermining the People's faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so."
The judge said Powell, Wood, and other lawyers who worked with them "have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.""
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-sanctions-sidney-powell-other-pro-trump-lawyers-who-claimed-voter-fraud-2021-08-25/
And another, this one from a Trump-appointed judge:
"On Thursday, Bloomberg Law reported that MyPillow CEO and pro-Trump election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell and his attorneys face sanctions for a "frivolous" lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
The decision was handed down by federal judge Carl Nichols, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.
"A federal judge in Washington on Thursday imposed sanctions on Lindell and his former lawyers as part of a decision throwing out the CEO's defamation lawsuits against Dominion Voting Systems Inc. and Smartmatic Corp., which were falsely placed at the center of a vast conspiracy theory after the election," said the report."
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/20/appointed-hits-mike-lindell-with-sanctions-for-frivolous-voting-machine_partner/
more...
And more...
"State and federal judges -- some appointed by Trump -- have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits brought by Trump or his allies alleging election fraud and other irregularities. Independent experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there has been no evidence of widespread fraud."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voting-rules-insight-idUSKBN28V1DN
and more...
"A Trump-appointed federal judge threw out the president’s attempt to overturn Wisconsin’s election results Saturday, saying the president “has not proved” any wrongdoing by state officials, in a decision that appeared to crush one of the last hopes of the president’s supporters, who have maintained that some of his most notable recent court losses have dealt with legal standing to sue rather than the merits of the cases...
After U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig called Trump’s request
“bizarre”
and said
he had “a very, very hard time seeing how this is justiciable in the federal court,”
Trump’s attorneys changed their request to ask the court to order Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers to certify election results that are in line with what the state legislature, rather than the voters, want."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/12/trump-appointed-judge-in-wisconsin-shuts-down-campaigns-legal-argument-for-why-election-was-rigged/?sh=798e63ea15d9
And of course, I could go on all day. This is low-hanging fruit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/14/most-remarkable-rebukes-trumps-legal-case-judges-he-hand-picked/
I gotta say....every time I see numerous lengthy comments in the queue, I have a slight feeling of dread that perhaps this time I'll be forced to face that which is beyond dispute.
Then I read them.
As I requested evidence of claims lost on their merits, you've not provided anything regarding exactly what was being alleged and how they were PROVEN without merit. Testimonies by those happy to see Trump lose just doesn't cut it. As to Trump-appointed judges, which ones were required to say, "Oh hell yeah! I LOVE Donald Trump!" in order to be appointed??? This constant claim of "Trump appointed judges" is worthless. All that matters is what were the claims and how were they determined to be without merit? The "fruit" you portray is low hanging isn't even fruit!! It's just more of the same, as if citing a news report saying the same makes the same factual. So how can a claim be found to be lacking merit when the case is dismissed without a hearing? A dismissal of a case is not the same as proving the allegations false. Some of the cases were poorly crafted because of the limited window of opportunity to get the cases heard. That's unfortunate and it accounts for a great deal of them failing to be heard. Yet again, it doesn't mean the allegations were false or without the means to prove it. That's a hearing is supposed to provide. Jeez! This is basic stuff!!
For now, I submit the following link. The article does not claim the peer-reviewed (we know how you regard "peer review" as akin to a Pope's imprimatur) research prove Trump won the election. But it does deal in the types of problems only a Trump-hating asshole would pretend wasn't more wide-spread:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/28/new_peer-reviewed_research_finds_evidence_of_2020_voter_fraud_147378.html#!
More significant with regard to your (laughable) "proof" is this bit from the article:
Courts have rejected challenges to the 2020 presidential vote, generally citing the lack of evidence that any alleged fraud would have altered the outcome in a particular state. The Republican plaintiffs argued that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote counts or were prevented from seeing other evidence, they couldn’t provide such proof without investigations backed by subpoena power. Still, while some judges have agreed that irregularities occurred in 2020, they weren’t willing to grant discovery in the absence of evidence that fraud could reverse the election results. Republicans thus faced a Catch-22 situation.
I would insist most, if not all, of your offerings were of this type to one extent or another.
As to your response to the Michigan election official story I posted for Vinny, you engage in one of your typical ploys, believing if you can dismiss one case, you can dismiss all. But this requires intentionally ignoring certain realities:
1. The reported 56 instances of voter fraud are what they could prove. It doesn't account for any they didn't uncover. Not likely the defendant would offer evidence to insure her own demise.
2. This accounts only for one election official. Is she unique, or one of many?
You like to think that this one case proves there wasn't enough to overturn anything. But it is only one case of one person arrested and what they can prove she did, not additional people or incidents by her of which they know nothing. If it was illegal immigration, you'd ignore the "got-aways". It's indicative of activity which is likely far more common than any one case can prove.
Your Rudy apology is evidence of that which is assumed true of you. You repeat what lefty sources tell you and that's all you need to know to insist you have truth and facts. I don't know when you first heard he was disbarred. What's clear is that you took it on faith from some source you would likely put forth as one of integrity...because they said what pleases you to hear.
Now, I've no doubt you CAN go on all day. It's easy providing that which fails to respond to my request. But so far, as far as responding to my request, you've failed miserably. That's no surprise. You're a modern journalism student and doing journalism doesn't require providing what's desired, but only what can support your partisan hackery. Don't waste my time. Do what you demand of others: support your claims.
Marshal...
"1. The reported 56 instances of voter fraud are what they could prove. It doesn't account for any they didn't uncover. Not likely the defendant would offer evidence to insure her own demise."
Again, the "They only found 56 instances, and that ITSELF is proof of all the many that they missed" defense is not a rational one. It's a conspiracy theorist's fantasy and no one is obliged to take it seriously.
SOMETIMES, when all the serious experts say "there was no serious amount of voter fraud," all it means is that there was no serious amount of voter fraud. Indeed, that's normally the case.
Marshal...
" You repeat what lefty sources tell you and that's all you need to know to insist you have truth and facts. I don't know when you first heard he was disbarred."
I repeated nothing. Good God, what is wrong with you? You make up shit and throw it out there as if it has any semblance to reality. I TOLD you how I made that mistake:
"Clearly, my memory was lacking. He was SUSPENDED, not barred."
It has nothing to do with anyone "telling" me anything and everything to do with me being a fallible human and simply using the wrong word. What in God's name is wrong with you that you can't accept a person made a mistake just from a poor memory and move on with it?
And you should learn from that, too. I MADE A MISTAKE and made a claim that was factually wrong (using the wrong word by mistake). But as soon as it was pointed out, I admitted the mistake and moved on. You make STUPIDLY and OBSERVABLY false claims all the time. As in this case. Instead of accepting the reality of my clarification, you insist on this alternative fact world false claim that I'm repeating what someone told me. That is STUPIDLY, DEMONSTRABLY FALSE and it's not okay for Trump-style perverts to try to pervert reality to get "points" that only idiots will accept.
Stop it. Grow up. Be better. When you are wrong and can't support it, admit it. Move on.
Communication doesn't have to be this difficult.
Be a better adult, Marshal.
"I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff he has lost contact with, he's become detached from reality," said William Barr, who served as Trump's attorney general and was long known as loyal to the Republican president. In video testimony, Barr bluntly dismissed claims of fraud as "bullshit" and "crazy stuff."
From Reuters. WHY are all these far right Trump allies not only saying that Trump lost, but that the notion that he won is BS and delusional.?
And still he persists...
June 15, 2022 at 8:06 AM
"Again, the "They only found 56 instances, and that ITSELF is proof of all the many that they missed" defense is not a rational one. It's a conspiracy theorist's fantasy and no one is obliged to take it seriously."
Here's a tip: when you intend to pervert a point I've made, you might want to consider quoting my actual words isn't helpful to that cause. I never offered this as an argument. My comment was in response to your suggestion that because only 56 instances were found, only 56 instances existed at all and thus it's proof there wasn't enough instances to make a difference. What they found doesn't account for what they didn't find. Even said that way, it doesn't mean there was other instances, but that it doesn't guarantee there weren't and a leftist asshat shouldn't be so smug in suggesting there couldn't have been.
"SOMETIMES, when all the serious experts say "there was no serious amount of voter fraud," all it means is that there was no serious amount of voter fraud."
So now you raise the bar to "serious" experts. I see. But there's still the fact that it means "those experts who agree with or support your preferred belief, true or not". Thus, it's a delete-worthy comment to post and would be if I offered something like that at your crappy blog.
"I repeated nothing. Good God, what is wrong with you? You make up shit and throw it out there as if it has any semblance to reality. I TOLD you how I made that mistake:"
Whatever, Dan. It represents the basic truth my comments convey...that you're quick and eager to puke out whatever aligns with your bullshit positions and claims. Maybe before you type another word, you should actually find real evidence that what you intend to type is actually true beyond debate or question. It'll be a great effort for you to take the time finding what doesn't exist, but it'll save me all sorts of time and help to keep my blog bullshit-free.
"What in God's name is wrong with you that you can't accept a person made a mistake just from a poor memory and move on with it?"
How nice. Your obsession with demonizing your political betters is exposed, you whine you made a mistake, and I'm supposed to ignore the obsession behind the mistake. But hey, given you've been mistaken on so many times on so many subjects over the course of so many years...and this is well documented each time...color me duly impressed you've chosen to admit to a mistake which could have been easily avoided; which is relatively insignificant outside of it being another example of your obsession with demonizing your betters. I've already marked my calendar to commemorate your awesome "integrity"!!
"But as soon as it was pointed out, I admitted the mistake and moved on."
...compared to the thousands of other mistakes you still refuse to acknowledge it'll forever be remembered. Indeed, quite easy to remember due to it's unique and out of character nature.
"You make STUPIDLY and OBSERVABLY false claims all the time."
So you like to believe but never prove.
"As in this case. Instead of accepting the reality of my clarification, you insist on this alternative fact world false claim that I'm repeating what someone told me."
Yeah...focus on that. It's the least significant part of you presenting another falsehood. Yet, I wouldn't place any wagers on you reading of Rudy's license suspension and legitimately confusing it with something so different as a disbarment. That's like saying a student suspended was expelled. Two very different things which can't be confused.
"That is STUPIDLY, DEMONSTRABLY FALSE..."
It's a rational argument based on your well known behavior toward and irrational hatred of Trump and anyone connected to him. It manifests again with this:
"...it's not okay for Trump-style perverts to try to pervert reality to get "points" that only idiots will accept."
Projection by an actual defender of perversion to disparage those of better character (and it's a low bar to be one of better character than the likes of you). More projection follows:
"Stop it. Grow up. Be better. When you are wrong and can't support it, admit it. Move on.
Communication doesn't have to be this difficult.
Be a better adult, Marshal."
June 15, 2022 at 9:42 AM
"WHY are all these far right Trump allies not only saying that Trump lost, but that the notion that he won is BS and delusional.?"
My first guess is they were not true allies in the first place. But again, you believe your position valid because you can point to center-right figures who aren't bowing before Trump as you need to believe his more loyal followers are. In the meantime, you nose remains stuck up the asses of all leftists and perverts. Ironic and hypocritical as always.
Barr in particular is a curious case. He's been both demonized and praised by the left, and praised only because he's spoken in less than favorable terms about a guy he still claims he'll support for president if again nominated by the party. That alone mirrors my position, though the rest of his characterization of Trump I don't respect for reasons to divergent from the topic of this post. But at least, I will take a little trip down Memory Lane once again:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/william-barr-doj-fbi-voter-fraud-2020-election
This is but one of many articles which came out on Dec 1, 2020 regarding Barr's statement of not finding evidence of enough fraud to change election results from the election which took place less than thirty days prior. And that's assuming these articles came out on the same Tuesday as that Tuesday Barr spoke to the AP. In any case, more importantly, we can see that one would have to be a lefty to presume his claim represents a conclusive representation of reality, and indeed, one is left warned against presuming the investigation was complete.
The left loves to cite Barr as one who puts to rest claims of election fraud, but the truth is he does nothing more than say "to date" no evidence enough to change the election results has been found. It's an important distinction those claiming to love Jesus would ignore. I suppose such a person could claim it was an honest mistake, but the distinction was pointed out in December of 2020, so that would just be a lie or another "mistake" compelled by the irrational obsession with demonizing a president who's a better man (I refer again to the fact the bar doesn't have to be all that high for the statement to be a fact).
(Sidebar: I forgot up front to admit I purposely chose this FoxNews article over the many others reporting the same thing. It was as much to yank your lefty chains as much as my desire to get a more objective report.)
Along the way of digging up this article, I came upon another:
https://www.westernjournal.com/former-us-attorney-claims-ag-barr-pressured-not-investigate-voter-fraud/
I've never seen this before, and I've done no vetting or research on it as yet. But it is relevant to the issue here regarding just what kind of "ally" Barr ever actually was. And keep in mind, he's more than free to work for whomever he chooses...even one he doesn't personally like or even to do so and find out later he doesn't personally like the guy. But for an asshat like yourself to presume to hold him up as totally in the tank for Trump yet honorable enough to agree with your position on him...that's just typical lefty lying.
Post a Comment