I don't have a lot of time, so how this post turns out may not be as pretty as my usual offerings. But bullshit by lefties requires some clarification...not that doing so will end the bullshit, but at least I'll feel I've done more to counter it.
With this clown show of a hearing put on by the execrable and lying Nancy Pelosi, we can't help but recall the many and varied allegations of election fraud and irregularity which led to the presidency being stolen from a beneficial to the nation effective president in favor of a total failure who in fifty years of service in Congress hasn't accomplished a damned thing but to enrich himself. Setting aside the fools who would chose not to vote for Trump in 2020, the totally moronic assholes who actually believed Joe Biden to be an improvement is an indictment on the nation as a whole. How could we have come to a place where so many actually believed that to be true? There was never any evidence the guy was intelligent, honest, capable or in any way worthy of one's vote for anything, say nothing of being worthy of the presidency. And his performance from the jump and everything since has been a litany of proofs of the incredible stupidity of any who thought he'd make things better than they were, which was vastly better than they were prior to Jan 2017 and so far beyond what this dunce of a dumbass has done to our nation. And keep in mind, I'm speaking only of those who thought he was going to make things better, not those who may have voted for him out of hatred for Trump. That's an irrational issue for another time, as I can't get over how stupid those people were.
Anyway, this isn't really about that, either. This is about election fraud and what I mean when I use the term. Thus, no one should believe themselves welcome to bring around their own definitions. What follows is a description of what it means in the context of the 2020 elections.
The previous post dealt a bit with the lame attempts to pretend there was actual arguing in court to determine the merit of a given claim of fraud. There was very little of it, and most of it resulted in rulings in Trump's or the GOP's favor. What remained were cases not actually adjudicated and while I'm supposed to take seriously attempts to present evidence to that effect, it has been woefully absent any reference to specific claims and how they may have been deemed without merit. As I've said, it is a trial or hearing situation wherein one proves a case or has it proven without merit, not in the attempt to have an allegation heard. In the previous post, I provided a link to a John Lott piece which provided an example of what the GOP and Trump campaign was up against in getting their claims heard and adjudicated. It accounted for a considerable number of claims.
But here's the thing: When we talk about election fraud, particularly and specifically regarding the 2020 debacle (a debacle due to how it turned out and what it meant for the United States), it's more than just the typical Democrat stable of dead people voting. And it doesn't require a nationwide organization of Dem scumbags fanning out to vote twice or under fraudulent names. Those are just two of the many ways the election was stolen.
No. There was no need for such organizing. All that was needed was the fact that so many stupid people in so many different areas of life were personally committed to seeing Trump lose. That is, not seeing Biden win, but seeing Trump lose. That is, the derangement of Trump-haters of all parties, of all walks of American life acted on their own individual selves in service to that goal...sometimes like lone wolves and other times in concert with others. So in addition to all the perennial voter fraud favorites for which the Dem Party is so historically notorious, we had brand new methods of perverting the electoral process to favor one party (the jackass party) over the other (Trump World). Let's count the ways:
The Covid-19 situation provided an excellent opportunity for Democrats. Despite Trump's many great efforts to address it as time went on....inhibiting travel to/from China, working with industry to retool their factories to churn out more needed medical equipment and PPEs, "Operation Warp Speed", moving hospital ships and setting up additional medical facilities only to see most of it go unused, encouraging the investigating of prophylactic treatments, etc., Dems exploited the situation in a number of ways...the first of which was to pretend Trump wasn't getting things done on behalf of the American people struggling with the many unknowns of the illness. This portrayal of Trump "incompetence" was repeated constantly by Dem politicians, leftists in media as well as the ignorant, hateful and TDS sufferers among the leftist voters. Add this to the many false accusations against Trump leveled at him since he first threw his hat into the presidential campaign ring, and those who were being conditioned to reject Trump by such falsehoods were now fed even more of it.
As the election season drew close enough for voting to begin, various states ignored the election laws of their respective states on the pretense voting in person was a clear and present danger due to Covid. After suppressing information regarding the truly at risk, as well as the means to protect one's self from infection, this played well among the electorate, and mail-in became widespread. Voters were assured that this form of voting would be safe and secure, despite the fact fraud is far more likely and harder to detect. (It is said that in the European Union, 63% have put a ban on mailing in ballots except
for citizens living overseas. Another 22% have imposed a ban even for
those overseas. And most of those that allow mail-in ballots require
some form of photo ID to get one.) Ballot harvesting became common place and unsecured drop-boxes appeared in many locations, which ultimately were stuffed by Dems.
Then there's the leftist media, particularly of the Big Tech social variety, who in the most partisan manner possible, blocked stories and information beneficial to the Trump campaign, while at the same time blocking anything which was unfavorable for Dems, specifically Biden. The most notable among these is the case of the Hunter Biden laptop. It is said that had this information not be squelched so that so many people were unaware of it, as many as 17% of Biden voters would not have voted for Old Joe had they know of it. Even if that 17% simply chosen not to vote at all, it would have been more than enough to result in a Trump win. And since Dan loves experts, I present Dr. Robert Epstein:
https://www.israelunwired.com/hillary-clinton-supporter-testifies-about-massive-big-tech-election-meddling/
Epstein's testimony warns of just how manipulative the social media honchos are and that for them to be more aggressive with their methods than they were in the 2018 midterms is not even a question of "if", but "how badly". His estimates, even if half, would've made, and thus likely made a significant difference in the outcome of the 2020 election.
We now have a number of sources which detail how the 2020 election was stolen from Trump on behalf of Trump-haters across the United States of America, such as Mollie Hemingways' Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech and the Democrats Seized Our Elections, Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules and of course, the New York Times' own shenanigans as described here:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/08/how-the-new-york-times-publishes-lies-to-serve-a-biased-narrative/
https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/new-york-times-writer-brags-about-destroying-thousands-of-trump-ballots/
As can be seen by this limited list of examples, there was various means by which this election was stolen from Trump. And really, this just scratches the surface. Morons and liars insist the election was pure and honest. Those words should never be used in any discussion regarding how this election went down.
60 comments:
Yep, definitely stolen. These people want to be able to kill their own children. Stealing an election for the “good” of the nation would be a rounding error for them.
The fact that the Left pretends there is *no* evidence and is completely incurious about it speaks volumes. These are the same people who thought elections were stolen from Hillary and Stacy.
Get help. You sound like you're sitting in a pool of your own pee with spittle in your beard hammering words on your typewriter like a desperate madman.
I don't know how to help you see how irrational this is. Listen to all the many die-hard conservatives like Barr who are snickering at how insane all this sounds, embarrassed by their own party.
Help's on the way with more blue areas voting red. With more center-right people in power, the likelihood Dems can't steal another election improves. With the House becoming a GOP minority, we may well see a very different Jan 6 hearing where ALL questions are asked and answered with facts.
But help for Dan, who feels compelled to invent images which are more appropriate for himself than it is for me? Don't know if such help exists since God gave him over to his corruption. I produce all manner of evidence...evidence he demands...and the above is what he's been reduced to providing in response. And of course he continues to cite conservatives simply because they're no more enamored of Trump than he is, rather than because they've provided any proofs or evidences, either.
It's helpful to remember how what "sounds" insane might be reality. It's completely insane that a nation founded on principles steeped in reason and Christianity now tolerates around 800K murders of innocent children in the womb every year, the release of violent criminals in the name of "equity", sexual perversions of all sorts protected as normal by law and a host of other proofs of cultural decay. But it's happened and continues to happen.
And of course, and again, to pretend there's anything at all "insane" about the belief the 2020 election was stolen after the entirety of the Trump presidency marred by the true and most pernicious of liars of our political class...the Dem party...attempting to overturn the 2016 election in various ways...to pretend THIS is insane is itself insane. I wouldn't trust a dead Democrat, much less a living one.
"Irrational". "Irrational" is ignoring all the evidence demanded and then provided. This post is a "tip of the iceberg" collection of ways the 2020 election was stolen. All of it happened. It's a fact. When even a healthy percentage of Dem voters believe the election was rigged, it takes an abject liar like Dan to persist in suggesting it's OUR side which is insane. "Insane" would be giving morons like Dan the time of day. In that way, I'm out of my freaking mind!
Get help. You sound like you're sitting in a pool of your own pee with spittle in your beard hammering words on your typewriter like a desperate madman.
Notice how Trabue had absolutely no evidence to counter your argument, and actually had no argument at all. This crudity from someone who is always screaming about loving people. His comment was not a bit Christ-like and was actually something I'd expect from a petulant 8th-grader.
Glenn,
That's what "embrace grace" looks like.
Data shows that the president of the United States attempted a coup. He disrupted or tried to disrupt our free Republic. He has millions of followers who believe this nonsense. Useful idiots in sufficient numbers are a threat to a free Republic.
This is nothing to play with little boys. It's not a toy. You're attempting to destroy our Republic. You're going to be embarrassed one day that you allowed yourself to be used by a stupid Openly perverted and Deviant and dishonest con man. Get your shit together. This is embarrassing.
I'm not responding to stories about Unicorns in the middle of the Earth or a faked moon landing or other nonsense conspiracy theories. There is no there there. Bill Barr and countless ultra conservatives think you guys are nuts.
We can embrace grace and we should embrace grace in matters of holding different opinions about theology or whatever. But when it comes to causing harm to people, good people must take a stand against the oppressors and the useful idiots behind them.
You all should know this... but I'm quite convinced that you just have blinded yourselves to the harm that Trump and his useful idiots are causing.. I pray that your eyes may be opened.
Listen to the rational conservatives...
A partial list of ultra conservatives who recognize that election fraud claims are a great danger and stupidly false include Al Mohler...
https://relevantmagazine.com/current/nation/al-mohler-says-trumps-rigged-election-comments-are-endangering-his-legacy/
Jared Kushner and Ivanka...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10897387/amp/Ivanka-Jared-Kushner-did-NOT-believe-election-stolen-abandoned-Trump-final-days.html
Bill Barr, who thinks it's delusional bullshit (his words).
Former Trump supporter and ultra-conservative christian, Hunter Baker...
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/01/73675/
Of course, there is Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and some 30 to 40% of the GOP. All rational and right thinking conservatives recognize that the election was not stolen and that the claim is not just false and not just stupidly false, but dangerously and insanely false.
But you're allowing yourselves to be used by an openly corrupt pervert, the single most corrupt and dishonest president in our lifetime if not our history.
Did you fellows actually give money to Trump's non existent "election defense fund?" If so, you've been bilked. You've been played for fools. And you still are being played for fools.
There is plenty of evidence being presented in the hearings. It's too bad that you are afraid to look at it. Yesterday we learned how Trump tried to coerce Mike Pence into violating his oath of office by rejecting the electoral votes from states where Trumpers had submitted fraudulent slates of electors and simply declaring Trump to be the President. From the beginning, Pence told Trump that he wouldn't do it because everyone knew that the Vice-President had no authority to do any such thing. That didn't stop Trump from telling the crowd on January 6th that Pence could still change the result of the election.
I think my favorite part was John Eastman—the lawyer who proposed the cockamamie theory that the Framers were so stupid that they gave a sitting vice-president the power to decide an election in which he had been a candidate—seeking a pardon after the January 6th coup failed. In an email to Giuliani, he wrote, "“I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.”
Looking at your last link of "evidence" about stolen election... about Jon Schwarz destroying Trump ballots: How much of a moron are you? You seriously can't be this stupid. Just look at the tweets. Do they look serious to you?
Here's what Schwarz said...
"I Tried to Make Claims About Election Fraud So Preposterous Trump Fans Wouldn’t Believe Me. It Was Impossible."
https://theintercept.com/2021/07/21/election-fraud-trump-preposterous/
Come on... again, you're embarrassing yourselves in your effort to believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theories. He thought he could post comments SO RIDICULOUSLY STUPIDLY FALSE that even Trump supporters would recognize someone was yanking their chain. But they didn't.
Don't be a useful fool.
We can embrace grace and we should embrace grace in matters of holding different opinions about theology or whatever. But when it comes to causing harm to people, good people must take a stand against the oppressors and the useful idiots behind them.
So taking a stand means to make crude, childish comments like a petulant 8th grader? Yeah, what an ass to make such comments.
First, Vinny...
"There is plenty of evidence being presented in the hearings."
By all honest accounts, not really. Certainly nothing of significance, as this clown show itself isn't significant as Trump-haters and false people falsely asserting concern for "our democracy" would like American to believe it is.
"Yesterday we learned how Trump tried to coerce Mike Pence into violating his oath of office by rejecting the electoral votes from states where Trumpers had submitted fraudulent slates of electors and simply declaring Trump to be the President."
That's a sadly transparent misrepresentation of reality, and blatantly and intentionally so.
"From the beginning, Pence told Trump that he wouldn't do it because everyone knew that the Vice-President had no authority to do any such thing."
He has no requirement to count the votes. That is to say, nothing in the Constitution requires anything of him beyond his attendance for the process. Therefore, he could indeed have refused to count ANY of the Electoral Votes, and Congress would have to appoint someone else for the purpose, thereby recusing himself from participating in a fraudulent process of giving credence to Electoral Slates illegally produced. That's of course assuming he himself believed several states ignored their own constitutions regarding election laws for determining legal ballots, and enough to make a difference, which was absolutely true in Georgia.
"That didn't stop Trump from telling the crowd on January 6th that Pence could still change the result of the election."
So what? I'm constantly told being mistaken won't cost one one's salvation. Being mistaken about whether or not there's a way to recover a stolen election is hardly worthy of remark.
"I think my favorite part was John Eastman—the lawyer who proposed the cockamamie theory that the Framers were so stupid that they gave a sitting vice-president the power to decide an election in which he had been a candidate—seeking a pardon after the January 6th coup failed. In an email to Giuliani, he wrote, "“I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.”"
Given he did nothing illegal, a pardon is absolutely appropriate. One shouldn't listen to Democrats...particularly those on the 1/6 committee whose only purpose is to attack and punish Trump for being president instead of Hillary...with regard to how they portray any defender of Trump, even the worst among the rioters. Truth is not firm for such people and they will stretch to any extent possible to further their agenda. THAT'S why I won't waste my time with the hearings. They're not seeking truth for any legitimate purpose.
What follows relates to John Eastman. I chose it because the author does not speak favorably of Trump's attempt to recover his stolen presidency, but at least does so with an objective recitation of the facts. It truly makes your portrayal look as foolish as it sounds:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/facing-the-eastman-memo
By all honest accounts, not really.
Without watching the hearings, how do you know which accounts are honest and which aren't?
That's a sadly transparent misrepresentation of reality, and blatantly and intentionally so.
Actually, it's a perfectly accurate statement of what happened.
Therefore, he could indeed have refused to count ANY of the Electoral Votes, and Congress would have to appoint someone else for the purpose, thereby recusing himself from participating in a fraudulent process of giving credence to Electoral Slates illegally produced.
I suppose the Vice-President could have refused to count any of the Electoral Votes, but since his only job is to open the certificates, that would have been silly.
Given he did nothing illegal, a pardon is absolutely appropriate. One shouldn't listen to Democrats...particularly those on the 1/6 committee whose only purpose is to attack and punish Trump for being president instead of Hillary...with regard to how they portray any defender of Trump, even the worst among the rioters.
I'm not listening to the Democrats. I'm listening to the testimony of Republicans.
If Eastman did nothing illegal, why did he keep invoking the 5th Amendment in response to questions?
I chose it because the author does not speak favorably of Trump's attempt to recover his stolen presidency, but at least does so with an objective recitation of the facts
I'm not sure I would call that an "objective" recitation of the facts, but I don't see any of the blatant misrepresentations that I typically find in the articles you cite.
I particularly liked this part: Trump had had the period from Nov. 3, Election Day, until Dec. 14, when the Electoral College voted, to challenge the results. He did not seriously and systematically investigate rumors of election fraud, and he came to rely on lawyers who came up with crazy ideas like the Great Venezuelan Hugo Chavez Communist Dominion Smartmatic ballot-changing theory. Trump wasted precious time, and even if there were evidence of fraud so widespread that it would change the results of the election — and there was not — Trump would not have found it by relying on the likes of Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Lin Wood, and others.
The reason that Trump relied on that bunch of grifters is that no competent election attorney thought he had a case.
Now for the moron:
June 17, 2022 at 7:21 AM
"Data shows that the president of the United States attempted a coup."
It absolutely does not, but Trump-haters make every effort to portray events in that manner...because they're hateful liars...or lying haters...either way, assholes, who spent the entire four years of Trump's presidency staging a coup of their own. Constantly and without pause. THAT'S what data shows.
"He disrupted or tried to disrupt our free Republic."
A moronic claim. Trump sought to prevent that and failed to do so. We're seeing a vile disruption and destruction of our free Republic right now due to the rank stupidity of those who chose not to support him for reelection. The data proves that without equivocation.
"He has millions of followers who believe this nonsense. "
None of his "millions of followers" believe "He disrupted or tried to disrupt our free Republic." That's because none of them are dumbass, lying "progressives" with their heads up their asses.
"Useful idiots in sufficient numbers are a threat to a free Republic."
And the damage to America we've endured since those useful idiots chose to reject Trump in 2020 is proof of that.
It's audacious for a lying, contemptible, fake Christian like Dan to dare condescend to better people as he did in the comment referenced by this response. That this rank pervert can say what he says about Trump while the nation suffers as a direct result of Trump having been rejected is incredible evidence of just how stupid a moron Dan truly is. His arrogance continues below.
--------------------------------------------
June 17, 2022 at 7:34 AM
"We can embrace grace and we should embrace grace in matters of holding different opinions about theology or whatever."
"Embrace grace" is just something Dan says when he faces that which he cannot counter, but wants to appear "Christian". It's a fraud.
"But when it comes to causing harm to people, good people must take a stand against the oppressors and the useful idiots behind them."
Says the asshat who defends the murder of 800,000 innocent children in the womb every year. He is an oppressor AND a useful idiot for those who fight against outlawing such heinous practices.
"You all should know this... but I'm quite convinced that you just have blinded yourselves to the harm that Trump and his useful idiots are causing.. I pray that your eyes may be opened."
What we know is that you're an inveterate and reprobate liar who attacks people better than you, and Trump is just one of them. The harm people like you have caused this nation in doing so is beyond anything I've seen in this nation in all my years. There is nothing Trump's done that comes within light years of the harm done by this current administration...an administration a true dumbf**K dared claimed would improve our lot, and has never admitted how wrong he was for proving his stupidity so blatantly. Embrace that, asshole.
------------------------------
June 17, 2022 at 8:09 AM
Nothing Dan said in this comment in any way mitigates anything I've presented in my post. Opinions are not facts.
You oversell Al Mohler's position. His concern is more for what Trump's insistence on being robbed will do to how he's perceived historically. He says nothing stands as proof, and thus his opinion the election wasn't stolen is just opinion and doesn't mitigate the truths and facts of my post. I would also say, given all we know about Biden, I find it troubling Mohler would prefer him over Trump for a neighbor, even if he would prefer Trump not live next door, either.
Regarding the Kushners, you cite a known Trump-hating NYT reporter and New Yorker hack who tweeted:
What a tragedy. A cameraman died covering the war for a TV network that airs a pro-Putin propagandist as its top-rated primetime host. https://t.co/zKHXRciMYu
— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) March 15, 2022
...about which Glenn Greenwald wrote:
"Exploiting the tragic death of a brave journalist in a war zone to smear another journalist as a Kremlin propagandist," reporter Glenn Greenwald wrote. "These people's souls are rotted from the inside out: consumed with jingoism and a McCarthyite zeal to hunt traitors, leaving them convinced all tactics are just."
Greenwald's a "gay" leftist, so he checks more boxes and must be taken more seriously, right Dan? No...I'm not giving any value or time to anything put out by such people.
The Hunter Baker piece fails, too. While he's free to have his opinions, most of them mirror mine until he gets to the election. But he makes a serious error which taints his piece, which is his reference to the Trump "call to the Georgia Secretary of State urging him to “find” additional votes. There's absolutely no reason to regard the call as "disturbing" unless one is only listening to the leftist version of the call. It was not disturbing or unethical in any way. The response to it by the Georgia Sec and governor was. This is a fact.
"But you're allowing yourselves to be used by an openly corrupt pervert, the single most corrupt and dishonest president in our lifetime if not our history."
No one is using me or most any other person who recognizes the election was stolen. I can't and won't try to account for every center-right figure who refuses to publicly acknowledge the truth. Listing examples which don't prove your point doesn't help you and your refusal to acknowledge the percentage of Dems who also believe the election was stolen is telling. What it's telling is what a liar you are. Indeed, and beyond debate, you're not being used. You're willfully, intentionally and dishonestly joining in with the very people doing damage to the nation and election integrity in having defeated Trump illegitimately for the purpose of installing the truly most corrupt and dishonest president in our lifetime if not our history, Joe Biden.
----------------------------------
June 17, 2022 at 11:55 AM
Ah...the hook was baited and Dan the bottom feeder chomped down on it. I saw your link when I found mine and you've just provided unassailable evidence that leftist "journalists" are liars. Thank you. You're a pip!
Vinny,
"Without watching the hearings, how do you know which accounts are honest and which aren't?"
The hearings themselves are dishonest. They are formed without regard for House rules. They are intended to find a reason to attack Trump and prevent him from ever being president. They are NOT intended to prevent a repeat of the Jan 6 incident or the assholes running this clown show would have put in some effort after previous "attacks on our democracy", such as the May 2020 rioting in the very same city.
"Actually, it's a perfectly accurate statement of what happened."
No. It's not, and the link I provided serves to explain why. Try reading it.
"I suppose the Vice-President could have refused to count any of the Electoral Votes, but since his only job is to open the certificates, that would have been silly."
No. As I stated accurately, his only requirement (his only "job") is to be in attendance. Pay attention. Many indeed regard it as silly, but that's how it works.
"I'm not listening to the Democrats. I'm listening to the testimony of Republicans.
If Eastman did nothing illegal, why did he keep invoking the 5th Amendment in response to questions?"
Maybe you need to study what the 5th Amendment says. One is not required to prove one's self guilty of a charge. The 5th protects that right to remain silent so as not to incriminate one's self. It acknowledges unintentional self incrimination is possible. Basic stuff.
"I'm not sure I would call that an "objective" recitation of the facts, but I don't see any of the blatant misrepresentations that I typically find in the articles you cite."
Asserting "blatant misrepresentations" doesn't prove they are such, but like Dan, you're pretending you've done so. Be sure to be more exact about believing you've accomplished that in the future.
"The reason that Trump relied on that bunch of grifters is that no competent election attorney thought he had a case."
Talk about blatant misrepresentations!! Each of these people came with solid credentials and histories. That they failed here does not make them grifters. It makes the human and unable to overcome the many obstacles which inhibited the possibility of success.
So which "competent election attorney" refused because there was no case as opposed to not seeing a way to win. That's an important distinction. It is not in the least uncommon for an attorney...particularly prosecutors...to refuse to take a case to court if they don't believe they can win it, even when they know a person is guilty.
It's crystal clear that you're watching the Stalinist show trial with a heaping helping of NeverTrump bias and there's plenty of that in those running it, so I'll continue to sit it out. There's far, far more important things each of these partisan hacks should be doing than this bullshit.
The hearings themselves are dishonest. They are formed without regard for House rules.
Do you know who makes House rules? The House.
As I stated accurately, his only requirement (his only "job") is to be in attendance. Pay attention. Many indeed regard it as silly, but that's how it works.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Article 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted." That's his job.
It's crystal clear that you're watching the Stalinist show trial with a heaping helping of NeverTrump bias and there's plenty of that in those running it, so I'll continue to sit it out.
No. I have been watching the testimony of the witnesses who have mostly been Republicans--except perhaps for the Capitol Police Officer who suffered a brain injury when she was overrun by a mob of supposedly peaceful protestors.
Marshal...
"Maybe you need to study what the 5th Amendment says. One is not required to prove one's self guilty of a charge."
But seriously: Do you honestly think he did nothing illegal? Why were conservative lawyers telling him to get a good criminal lawyer? Do you think HE thinks he did nothing illegal?
Don't be naive.
"Do you know who makes House rules? The House."
Do you know the House has already established how such committees should be formed and run prior to forming this one without regard for those rules? Or are you suggesting they make up new rules every time? Really??
"I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Article 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted." That's his job."
I was wrong to the extent that he does open the Certs. After that, no other requirement is upon him. After that, it only says the votes shall then be counted. If it had to be him, there are many ways it could have explicitly said so. It could be anyone who counts them after he opens the certs. Thus, he could actually refuse to count them, particularly if he felt there were Electoral votes which were the result of disregard for the state's election laws.
"No. I have been watching the testimony of the witnesses who have mostly been Republicans--except perhaps for the Capitol Police Officer who suffered a brain injury when she was overrun by a mob of supposedly peaceful protestors."
Like Dan, when you need them, you regard Republicans/conservatives as angelic, truthful and unassailable. Such integrity!! There are many NeverTrumpers among conservatives and the GOP, that's why I used the term "NeverTrump bias".
Unlike the riots of the summer of 2020, the vast majority of protesters were indeed peaceful and even among those who entered the Capitol, that remained true. But NO ONE pretends there weren't those who were way the hell out of hand. The same is true of Capitol cops and without seeing all the 1400 hours of video, I don't know if we can say just how peaceful this chick was before being "overrun". At least she wasn't shot or beaten to death by Capitol cops.
June 17, 2022 at 6:39 PM
"Do you honestly think he did nothing illegal?"
Yes.
"Why were conservative lawyers telling him to get a good criminal lawyer?"
Who were these "conservative lawyers" and why wouldn't they tell him that given the dishonest character of those who would be grilling him?
"Do you think HE thinks he did nothing illegal?"
No.
"Don't be naive."
About this I'm certainly not. If only you were. It's far better than being a moron.
Do you know the House has already established how such committees should be formed and run prior to forming this one without regard for those rules? Or are you suggesting they make up new rules every time? Really??
No. I'm not suggesting they make up new rules every time. I'm also not conceding that the committee was formed without regard for the rules. I'm simply pointing out that the House makes the House rules and the House interprets the House rules. Therefore, the House is free to make adjustments to the rules if it deems them necessary to deal with a unique situation, such as the minority party attempting to put a seditionist on a committee being formed to investigate the sedition in which he participated. It does not invalidate the committee's investigation.
I was wrong to the extent that he does open the Certs. After that, no other requirement is upon him. After that, it only says the votes shall then be counted. If it had to be him, there are many ways it could have explicitly said so. It could be anyone who counts them after he opens the certs. Thus, he could actually refuse to count them, particularly if he felt there were Electoral votes which were the result of disregard for the state's election laws.
Actually, you were only wrong to the extent that you don't know what you are talking about. While the Constitution does not explicitly designate who counts the electoral votes, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 specifies that the House and the Senate each appoint two tellers to count the electoral votes. Since the Vice-President has no statutory or constitutional duty to do the actual counting of the electoral votes, his refusal to count them would be meaningless.
Like Dan, when you need them, you regard Republicans/conservatives as angelic, truthful and unassailable. Such integrity!! There are many NeverTrumpers among conservatives and the GOP, that's why I used the term "NeverTrump bias".
I don't view anyone as unassailable, but I know you have read enough apologists to know what “enemy attestation” means. I still think that Bill Barr is a lying sack of crap, but it is beyond absurd to suggest that he has a never-Trump bias.
Unlike the riots of the summer of 2020, the vast majority of protesters were indeed peaceful . . .
You are of course wrong: the overwhelming majority of Black Lives Matter protests were peaceful.
[W]ithout seeing all the 1400 hours of video, I don't know if we can say just how peaceful this chick was before being "overrun".
You can't say because you refuse to look at the evidence, but the police officer (who you so dismissively refer to as “this chick”) was overrun pretty early in the attack, so it only takes a few minutes of video to understand what happened to her.
"No. I'm not suggesting they make up new rules every time."
Yeah...you pretty much are.
"I'm also not conceding that the committee was formed without regard for the rules."
Yeah...it pretty much was.
" I'm simply pointing out that the House makes the House rules and the House interprets the House rules. Therefore, the House is free to make adjustments to the rules if it deems them necessary to deal with a unique situation, such as the minority party attempting to put a seditionist on a committee being formed to investigate the sedition in which he participated."
What an incredibly convenient way to deny participation by anyone Nancy deems likely to expose them for their agenda for the partisan crap sandwich it is. That agenda doesn't question whether the intention of any in the crowd (including Trump's) was "sedition". It assumes it and seeks to find ways to make the charge stick. A Jim Jordan or Jim Banks would act against that lame-assed charge and focus on fact to determine who is guilty of what and the appropriate consequences to the extent they have such authority. A Jim Jordan or Jim Banks would call witnesses who would further act on the premise of innocence until guilt is proven, and that doesn't work for Nancy and her gang of Trump-haters. A Jim Jordan or Jim Banks would not deal in false rhetoric and hyperbole about "assaults on our democracy" regarding people who have a far more legitimate reason to protest their government than looters, arsonists and thugs who rioted on the false premise of "racist cops" killing a thug resisting arrest.
Members of these committees are, according to House rules, are supposed to be made up of an equal amount of members of each party, with those members chosen for the purpose by their party's leader. There are only two Republicans who were chosen by Pelosi. If there was some legitimate reason why Jordan and Banks were unqualified (seditionist my ass), McCarthy could have chosen others. And did McCarthy get to question the appropriateness of the Dem participants? Did this committee have the full approval of both parties in the first place? Not to the extent you'd like to believe. Clearly both Senate Republicans saw this as a redundancy given DOJ actions seeking answers for why it happened. Clearly McCarthy objected to how the committee was formed.
The following preceded the start of the hearings and detailed what to expect from it. In doing so, it points out a number of problems inherent and affirms the convenience of Pelosi having the last word in who is allowed to participate. Denying the minority leader's selections is totally subjective, self-serving and despite being within the Speaker's authority, conflicts with tradition and precedent compeletely:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/01/05/6-things-to-expect-from-jan-6-committee-in-2022/
"It does not invalidate the committee's investigation."
A sham investigation invalidates itself.
"Actually, you were only wrong to the extent that you don't know what you are talking about"
Only on the point to which I conceded. But you go ahead and do your happy dance.
"Since the Vice-President has no statutory or constitutional duty to do the actual counting of the electoral votes, his refusal to count them would be meaningless."
That would depend upon his reason for refusing, wouldn't it? It would be considered unprecedented and thus a reason would be sought and expected to be provided. If Pence believed the counting would indicate fraudulently selected slates of Electors would be considered legit, refusing to count the votes would add validity to the charge, even if someone else would be assigned to do the counting to certify the results. I will concede I don't know how Pence truly felt about the legitimacy of the election. He's demonstrated a lack of spine before, so who truly knows but him how he feels? The President of the Senate position is largely ceremonial for most of what one routinely does as one. John Adams famously hated it.
"I don't view anyone as unassailable, but I know you have read enough apologists to know what “enemy attestation” means."
Yeah, but there haven't been any legit examples of it. The entirety of the committee is made up of Trump-haters, including Cheney and Kinzinger. Someone like Jordan or Banks were denied because they weren't Trump-haters. If they were on the committee and were major factors in accomplishing all Pelosit hopes to accomplish, they'd be examples of enemy attestation. The term must refer to those who are not allied with Pelosi and the Trump-haters to be legitimately applied here.
"I still think that Bill Barr is a lying sack of crap, but it is beyond absurd to suggest that he has a never-Trump bias."
Barr's expressed quite a bit to demonstrate he is no fan of Trump, even if he's less of a fan of any Dem who might run against him if Trump is again the GOP nominee in '24. Get serious.
"You are of course wrong: the overwhelming majority of Black Lives Matter protests were peaceful."
But the comparison is apt. There was nothing about the disturbance at the Capitol which comes anywhere close to the violence, destruction and physical harm to people...including those killed as a result of protesters...which occurred at the "mostly peaceful protests" of BLM and lefty protests in general. What happened on Jan 6 was wholly unprecedented for a Trump rally. Yet Trump thought it wise to prepare for trouble due to the nature of this particular rally. When will the committee address those responsible for refusing Trump's offer of troops?
"You can't say because you refuse to look at the evidence, but the police officer (who you so dismissively refer to as “this chick”) was overrun pretty early in the attack, so it only takes a few minutes of video to understand what happened to her."
Feel free to link to a video presenting the full context. I'll in turn seek one out myself. But no, I'm not going to sit through a partisan clown show as if doing so will demonstrate any more thoroughly my acknowledgement a few hundred people acting badly.
"a few hundred people acting badly..."
??
A FEW HUNDRED MURDEROUS people intent on disrupting the election and, if they get a chance to, to kill some politicians including the president's OWN VP? And doing so because, according to them and the evidence, the president himself invited him there to do so??
Wow, how you dismiss a large attack on our free republic as if it were some school children toilet papering a house. Would you feel the same if it were "only" a few hundred people being encouraged by Clinton to disrupt the 2016 election?
Don't think WE'RE naive, even if you are.
June 18, 2022 at 4:17 PM
"A FEW HUNDRED MURDEROUS people intent on disrupting the election and, if they get a chance to, to kill some politicians including the president's OWN VP? And doing so because, according to them and the evidence, the president himself invited him there to do so??"
You're such a chump, a sucker of the type born every minute, a tool! This was reported by an FBI informant referred to as W1. This is the same FBI who has been exposed as political hacks who embed their agents in various groups to stir up trouble as in the fake conspiracy to assassinate Gretchen Whitless. So pardon me if I withhold buying into anything an unidentified FBI informant says about a group their Dem puppet masters don't like anyway and wish to portray as a dangerous WHITE SUPREMACIST group.
"A few hundred 'MURDEROUS' people"???? Project much? Hyperbole much? How very Trumpish of you!! From what I can find, there's a total of around 15 arrested from both the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, neither of which to my knowledge have a history of murder. The amount I mentioned might certainly represent a larger total number, but "a few hundred"??? Based on what? The total number of people present? You're a lying sack of shit, Dan, and I'm not surprised you'd indulge in such old woman-style misrepresentations.
But your "outrage" is typical of the overwrought bluster of lying leftists seeking to make this out to be more than it is, as if what it was wasn't clearly bad enough. You people are freaks!!
"Wow, how you dismiss a large attack on our free republic as if it were some school children toilet papering a house."
You HAD to have borrowed this analogy from someone else!!! It's so untypically appropriate for what this was. As exaggerated a dismissal as that analogy would be, it's nowhere near as exaggerated as "insurrection!!", "destroying our democracy!!", "sedition!", "worst attack on our Capitol since the Civil War!", "as significantly horrific as Pearl Harbor or 9/11!!!!". Morons you are!
"Would you feel the same if it were "only" a few hundred people being encouraged by Clinton to disrupt the 2016 election?"
I would be far less surprised given it's how you lefties roll. There have been dozens of examples provided featuring lefty politicians ACTUALLY inciting people to violent behavior (to say nothing of the many instances of lefty citizens perpetuating violence). And those were examples of more direct incitement to action, unlike what Trump did, which was no more than Pat O'Brien's half-time pep talk in Knute Rockne, All American. You're a moron.
"Don't think WE'RE naive, even if you are."
🤣🤣🤣🤣 You're such a 🤡! No Danny-girl. I don't at all think of you as "naive". That would be a massive upgrade.
Members of these committees are, according to House rules, are supposed to be made up of an equal amount of members of each party, with those members chosen for the purpose by their party's leader.
It's too bad you don't take threats to the Constitution as seriously as you take threats to the House rules.
That would depend upon his reason for refusing, wouldn't it?
No. It wouldn't. If Pence had refused to administer the oath of office to Biden, it would have been meaningless because that's not something the Vice-President does. It wouldn't matter what reason he had for refusing. By the same token, it would have been meaningless for Pence to refuse to actually count the electoral because that's not the Vice-President's job.
Pence could have refused his constitutional duty to open the certificates, but that wouldn't have conformed to Eastman's plan.
The entirety of the committee is made up of Trump-haters, including Cheney and Kinzinger. Someone like Jordan or Banks were denied because they weren't Trump-haters. If they were on the committee and were major factors in accomplishing all Pelosi hopes to accomplish, they'd be examples of enemy attestation. The term must refer to those who are not allied with Pelosi and the Trump-haters to be legitimately applied here.
How convenient. If someone criticizes Trump's attempts to overturn the election, you deem them to be, at the very least, an ally of the Trump haters. That way you can dismiss any criticism because, by definition, critics are untrustworthy Trump haters.
Jordan was unacceptable because of his promotion of the Big Lie. It is fundamental that you don't let suspects conduct investigations. The reason that Cheney and Kinzinger are the only Republicans on the committee is because McCarthy withdrew the names of the three Republicans (one of whom had voted against certification) that Pelosi had accepted.
Barr's expressed quite a bit to demonstrate he is no fan of Trump, even if he's less of a fan of any Dem who might run against him if Trump is again the GOP nominee in '24.
Barr did quite a bit to demonstrate that he was a willing Trump toady up until he refused to go along with the Big Lie.
Feel free to link to a video presenting the full context. I'll in turn seek one out myself.
Fell free to find some right-wing liar at American Thinker or The Federalist to tell you what to think about what happened to that police officer. I'm not going to waste my time looking for links that you could easily find for yourself if you were actually interested in learning what happened.
When will the committee address those responsible for refusing Trump's offer of troops?
I don't know. The committee has not announced which topics will be addressed at which hearing.
Marshal... "The amount I mentioned might certainly represent a larger total number, but "a few hundred"??? Based on what?"
YOU were the who mentioned "a few hundred people acting badly." I was going with your estimate.. There were certainly crowds of people threatening violence to Mike Pence another politician's, chanting hang Mike Pence... a sentiment that was encouraged by Trump. That is what I meant by large numbers of murderous people. Non murderous people don't threaten in the midst of large crowds to assassinate political leaders.
https://youtu.be/KCbTgDC14uY
Are you unaware of these threats of murder?
"It's too bad you don't take threats to the Constitution as seriously as you take threats to the House rules."
That's funny, Vinny, and a fine example of leftist projection. To wit:
The US Constitution (the US-C) affirms authority for determining election rules and procedures lies in the individual state legislatures. At least two states, Georgia and Pennsylvania, if not each of the five "swing states", violated their own state constitutions regarding how elections were to run...such as what constitutes a legal ballot...and their vote totals were clearly impacted by that. This is what Trump and his legal team was doing with the call haters pretend was an attempt to have Brad Raffensperger produce fake ballots. The reality is that based on Georgia's own records, the Trump team found around 35,000 ballots filled out by people who have lived for more than 30 days outside the precinct in which they cast their ballots, making those ballots invalid. The margin of victory for Biden in Georgia was only 11,000 votes (and change), which was the number Trump asked Raffensperger to find in order to change the final result. That is, these were invalid votes...they didn't count because they were improperly cast, and by the state rules for casting ballots for federal offices, the US-C protects the authority of the legislature to alter rules. They did not provide for counting these ballots as legit. That was one county in one state.
---Joe Biden and his party of dumbasses are seeking to infringe upon the right to bear arms.
---Joe Biden and his party of dumbasses infringed on the free exercise of religion.
---Joe Biden and his party of dumbasses infringed the right to freely associate.
---Joe Biden and his party of dumbasses infringed on the right to a speedy trial, the prolonged imprisonment of political prisoners after Jan 6 also amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.
---Joe Biden and his party of dumbasses infringed on the right of the people to be secure in their persons, as they also ignored the Nuremberg Code prohibiting the forcing of experimental drugs on citizens without their consent. Where he wasn't directly involved, he tolerated others forcing drugs on the people.
---Joe Biden and his party of dumbasses failed in their constitutional duty to protect our borders from foreign invaders, and indeed, aid and abet such invasion with impunity resulting in all manner of tangible harm to the American people.
Tell me again who doesn't take threats to the Constitution seriously? Your party regards the Constitution as toilet paper.
"That would depend upon his reason for refusing, wouldn't it?
No. It wouldn't."
Of course it would. There's no obligation to proceed with any duty should illegality be furthered by doing so. ("Eastman's 'plan'" has no bearing on it whatsoever.) For Pence to refuse to open the certifications from questionable states like Georgia, even if someone else was then assigned to take his place in doing so, the act would have incredible symbolic significance, regardless of it would make any tangible difference as to the ultimate counting of those votes. He would have risen in the opinions of at least half the nation.
"How convenient. If someone criticizes Trump's attempts to overturn the election, you deem them to be, at the very least, an ally of the Trump haters."
I'm referring to those chosen to be on the committee. Maybe you should pay attention. You even freaking copy/pasted my exact words and then make this bullshit statement which doesn't at all relate to it. Which person on that committee is an advocate of Trump...a supporter...an ally?
"Jordan was unacceptable because of his promotion of the Big Lie."
The "Big Lie" is a big lie. It's lefty propaganda to deflect from all that should have been investigated and wasn't which, had it been, would have resulted in a Trump win. OR, simply the fear that doing the right thing with regard to the tons of allegations of fraud and irregularity would have resulted in a Trump win. No one who questions the result of the 2020 election is "lying" about anything, but merely recognizing that which is incredibly suspicious and worthy of a serious, honest look. Not since 1988 have the Democrats not contested an election they lost. But somehow, for Trump and his supporters to do so, after four to five years of attempts to unseat him from his legitimate 2016 win, is somehow suspect and insane? What a bunch of lying hypocrites you Trump-haters are!!! There was never any evidence of fraud for Trump in 2016 that had any degree of validity as what was gathered after 2020.
"It is fundamental that you don't let suspects conduct investigations."
Agreeing the election was probably stolen is not a crime, nor does it suggest any participation in the skirmish at the Capitol on Jan 6. What an incredibly moronic thing to say!! With that stupidity still on the table here, you have indicted the current committee line-up as irretrievably prejudiced and unlikely to run the dog and pony show as a legitimate quest for truth. Well done.
"The reason that Cheney and Kinzinger are the only Republicans on the committee is because McCarthy withdrew the names of the three Republicans (one of whom had voted against certification) that Pelosi had accepted."
More stupidity:
1. Who gets to vet the Dem selections and insist they be replaced?
2. If Pelosi couldn't abide any of McCarthy's selections, he should have at the very least been allowed the right to select someone else.
3. How does Pelosi get to pick ANY Republicans and expect they can be regarded by the American people as impartial, especially given the rank dishonesty and partisan Trump-hatred of Pelosi?
Keep talking, Vinny. You're making my case better than I can!
"Fell free to find some right-wing liar at American Thinker or The Federalist to tell you what to think about what happened to that police officer."
There are no right-wing liars at either website. They leave the lying to leftists, who lie like they have a mandate from God to do so.
As to the police officer, I'm no more concerned for her than I was for any other cop who sustained injuries. But based on what YOU said here, which is based on what YOU heard from her, she was merely knocked down in a crush of bodies...as has happened at dozens of rock concerts and other venues with large crowds. Beyond that, I believe they told her she shouldn't have been in their way as they were helping her to her feet, those murderous bastards. I might have that wrong. What I don't have wrong is that it wasn't malicious. By that I mean there was no apparent intention of directly causing her harm. I just watched it again, and as unfortunate as her fall was, (she didn't trip on a step as she said, but that's completely insignificant given the force which pushed her back), it just didn't appear they had it in for her specifically at all, but only intended to breech that crappy barricade. I also note in the video, Ray Epps is clearly visible at the front of the crowd and still not languishing in jail.
"I don't know. The committee has not announced which topics will be addressed at which hearing."
And on what is your wager placed? Do you not think that's a salient question which needs answering?
June 19, 2022 at 1:10 PM
"YOU were the who mentioned "a few hundred people acting badly." I was going with your estimate.."
No. Being a pervert, you took what I said and perverted it to: "
A FEW HUNDRED MURDEROUS people intent on disrupting the election" I said "people" and you, being a liar, said "murderous people". Dickhead.
"There were certainly crowds of people threatening violence to Mike Pence another politician's, chanting hang Mike Pence... a sentiment that was encouraged by Trump. That is what I meant by large numbers of murderous people. Non murderous people don't threaten in the midst of large crowds to assassinate political leaders."
As it happens, I've looked at at least a dozen different articles all referencing this chanting...a few suggesting a video accompanying the article...but none actually HAD a video in which anyone can be heard making such a chant to hang anyone. I've seen a Reuter's "journalist" and Liz Cheney making a reference...and I've seen Trump being questioned about how he feels about people chanting such a thing (nothing at all depicting any encouragement by Trump to seek out Pence for public execution, you lying sack of shit)...but no actual evidence of anyone actually chanting that. Thus, to say that "hundreds"...murderous or not...was seeking to kill anyone is a preposterous but typical lefty-like lie. It's what's commonplace among the Dem supporting leftists these days to lie like it's a favorite hobby. Today's Democrat Party is a festering boil on the asshole of America, and people like Dan are its puss.
So I looked at your video below:
"https://youtu.be/KCbTgDC14uY
Are you unaware of these threats of murder?"
There must be tens upon tens of people.
The reality is that were Pence to have been hauled out (without those attempting shot dead by Secret Service and then scattering) the crowd of Trump supporters would have rushed in to protect him. THAT is far more likely how the crowd would respond to assholes doing something like that. Indeed, had I been there, and heard that first fat bearded f**ker making his tough guy talk, I would've have crammed his cell phone down his throat.
But you really need to believe, after all the deaths threats against Trump and the cheering that followed, be it by Madonna, Johnny Depp, Robert DeNiro, Snoop Dog and other rappers, now you're going to get all weepy over some rowdy asshats saying stupid shit. You're such a freakin' hypocrite. I'll bet you have a picture of Kathy Griffin holding a bloody Trump head.
The US Constitution (the US-C) affirms authority for determining election rules and procedures lies in the individual state legislatures.
One of the fundamental principles of federalism is that states control their own elections and state courts determine whether the their elections are in accordance with their laws, so you lose that argument.
There's no obligation to proceed with any duty should illegality be furthered by doing so. ("Eastman's 'plan'" has no bearing on it whatsoever.)
In a society governed by the Rule of Law, courts determine whether illegality is being furthered: not individuals. Once the courts have ruled, that's it. That's why Al Gore was constitutionally obligated to open the certificate from Florida in 2001 despite the poorly reasoned Supreme Court decision that gave the election to Bush.
If Pelosi couldn't abide any of McCarthy's selections, he should have at the very least been allowed the right to select someone else.
He was allowed to select someone else. McCarthy chose to withdraw all five of his selections after Pelosi rejected Jordan and Banks. I wish I could say that I was surprised that you didn't know that, but given your slavish devotion to sites like American Thinker and The Federalist, I'm not surprised at all.
I'm no more concerned for her than I was for any other cop who sustained injuries.
So much for “Blue Lives Matter.”
Ray Epps is clearly visible at the front of the crowd and still not languishing in jail.
Ray Epps is not in jail because the FBI investigated him and found that he is a Trump supporter who didn't enter the Capitol and didn't encourage others to do so. I love the way Trumpers are happy to throw other Trumpers under the bus when it suits their purposes.
Keep talking, Vinny. You're making my case better than I can!
Whenever someone on the internet resorts to the your-argument-really-supports-me dodge, I know that they have nothing intelligent to say.
And on what is your wager placed? Do you not think that's a salient question which needs answering?
I'm not sure whether that's an important question or not. In determining the ultimate responsibility for the tragedy, it might turn out to be insignificant. It's kind of like asking why they didn't start loading the lifeboats sooner on the Titanic. It might indicate culpable negligence or it might simply have been the wrong call in a tough situation.
My wager would be that the committee has looked at everything related to the deployment of the National Guard on January 6th, and my wager is that the hearings will address in detail who bears responsibility for which decisions. We could make a real wager, but then you would have to watch the hearings.
"One of the fundamental principles of federalism is that states control their own elections and state courts determine whether the their elections are in accordance with their laws, so you lose that argument."
Not hardly...and that's due to the fact that you don't seem to understand the argument. My argument doesn't conflict with the notion of federalism at all. It's focused on the individual state's election laws, who decides what they are and how what they are were perverted by those not part of those who get to decide. THAT is the argument. Georgia, for example, had rules governing where one could vote based on where they lived. Only those who moved within thirty days of an election could vote from their previous home town. I would suspect this is due to the time it might take to update records regarding place of residence being within thirty days. Yet the Trump team, using Georgia's data, determined about 35000 votes which cast contrary to this rule. If the legislature has sole authority, it is the legislature who would have to enact a change to this rule and that didn't happen. Thus, not only was state law ignored, but the Constitution which affirms the authority belongs solely to the state legislature.
"In a society governed by the Rule of Law, courts determine whether illegality is being furthered: not individuals."
Nice try. I would hope for better, though. I say again, no one is obliged to act in a manner furthering illegality.
"Once the courts have ruled, that's it."
The claim of the Trump team regarding the 35000 Georgia ballots were not ruled by any court one way or another, given it never ended up in court. So you lost that argument. Indeed, the claim...like so many of them...was ignored. But the Trump team had their evidence for it based on Georgia records. Honor should've dictated the Georgia slate be ignored as well and those Electoral votes invalidated, with the election result based on the remaining total.
"That's why Al Gore was constitutionally obligated to open the certificate from Florida in 2001 despite the poorly reasoned Supreme Court decision that gave the election to Bush."
Thanks for backing me up. The courts ruled (quite properly despite the desperate Dem need to believe otherwise) in 2000 because they heard the complaints. Not so in 2020.
"He was allowed to select someone else. McCarthy chose to withdraw all five of his selections after Pelosi rejected Jordan and Banks."
The fact that the opposing party chose to withdraw should have led to negotiation by Pelosi, not petulance, as her rejection of Jordan and Banks were. The so-called "Big Lie" was the reason there was a rally in the first place, which resulted in a small portion of the crowd aroused by whatever means to act badly. By rejecting those who were willing to address the complaints falsely described as "The Big Lie", it provides more evidence of desire to achieve a predetermined outcome of the hearings as opposed to a truly sincere investigation to uncover the actual truth. Thus, Pelosi abused her position once again with her "my way or the highway" response to McCarthy's selections and ultimate withdrawal from participation in the sham process. I wish I could say that I was surprised that you didn't know that, but given your head is so far up the asses of your Dem masters, I'm not surprised at all.
"So much for “Blue Lives Matter.”"
You've been easily played. Having "no more concern" for one person over another doesn't equate to having no concern at all. Had your party any concern at all, they wouldn't have put her in that position by refusing offers for National Guard troops. You'll note in her testimony she expressed a desire for more people like Roy Scheider expressing a desire for a bigger boat.
"Ray Epps is not in jail because the FBI investigated him and found that he is a Trump supporter who didn't enter the Capitol and didn't encourage others to do so."
And yet there are several videos proving the exact opposite in multiple locations and at multiple times. I wish I could say that I was surprised that you didn't know that, but given your head is so far up the asses of your Dem masters, I'm not surprised at all. What's more, you people want to indict Trump for inciting an insurrection without anything approaching rational evidence, while this Epps dude is actually doing it and is let go because he lacked the testicles to join those he spent two days inciting. Yeah. Let's go with that.
"Whenever someone on the internet resorts to the your-argument-really-supports-me dodge, I know that they have nothing intelligent to say."
You'd be more credible explaining why it isn't appropriate here and more so, to explain just how it's a dodge in this case. I can't wait.
"I'm not sure whether that's an important question or not. In determining the ultimate responsibility for the tragedy, it might turn out to be insignificant. It's kind of like asking why they didn't start loading the lifeboats sooner on the Titanic. It might indicate culpable negligence or it might simply have been the wrong call in a tough situation."
How long have you been tap dancing? That's hilarious, especially given the widespread contention that Trump is an idiot. Yet he foresaw the potential for a crowd the size expected might to have among them bad apples. Your brilliant Dems did not? They won't ask because they're far more culpable than they want anyone to know. Just as your kind were willing to avoid looking into the vast majority of election irregularity claims because they were certain it would result in Trump being seen as the legitimate winner of the 2020 election despite their cheating, so too are your kind unlikely to truly seek answers about Jan 6 because they're certain they won't find fault in Trump, and instead expose their own malfeasance, incompetence and negligence.
You're funny.
It's true, but there's nothing funny intended by any of the facts and truths I present about this situation. Indeed, it's all very UNfunny. Since 2016, the Dems have cemented in the minds of rational, honest people just how irrational and dishonest they are. They continue proving it as if it's their party platform: "Vote for us! We're moronic and evil!"
You missed an interesting hearing yesterday. I might have thought that I couldn't become any more disgusted with the depravity and mendacity of Trump and his band of traitors, but I would have been wrong. The way that Trump sicced his minions on Republican election officials who refused to violate their oaths of office by lying for him was despicable, but they way he targeted innocent election workers with bald-faced lies demonstrates an utter lack of human decency.
I think that today's testimony completely undermines the fable that anyone could have any doubts about the January 6th mob's capacity for violence. After Trumpers had eagerly harassed and threatened any official who wouldn't go along with the Big Lie, no one could have been under any illusion that they would behave calmly and peacefully when Trump told them to march on the Capitol.
"You missed an interesting hearing yesterday."
I'm sure.
"I might have thought that I couldn't become any more disgusted with the depravity and mendacity of Trump and his band of traitors, but I would have been wrong."
You'd never have thought that. You'd convinced yourself long ago with no evidence at all. Nothing could be presented to increase or mitigate it.
"The way that Trump sicced his minions on Republican election officials who refused to violate their oaths of office by lying for him was despicable, but they way he targeted innocent election workers with bald-faced lies demonstrates an utter lack of human decency."
So the stand-up was heavy, was it? "Sicced his minions"??? That's hilarious!!
"I think that today's testimony completely undermines the fable that anyone could have any doubts about the January 6th mob's capacity for violence."
There's no one on this side of the divide who has any delusions about the degree of violence perpetrated on that day, nor that, as with any other gathering which turns into a mob by whatever motivation, the degree to which such mobs can potentially escalate. But potential isn't relevant to any trial or hearing. Only the facts are and "capacity" is presented to further demonize anyone connected with Trump. It's typical leftism. This is why it rendered the hearings as fallacious to deny the presence of McCarthy's selections. The presence of a Jim Jordan or a Jim Banks (as well as his other three picks) would balance out this criminal attempt to go over the top.
"After Trumpers had eagerly harassed and threatened any official who wouldn't go along with the Big Lie, no one could have been under any illusion that they would behave calmly and peacefully when Trump told them to march on the Capitol."
Yeah. How rare and out of character for anyone to get pissed after having their legitimate concerns dismissed by lying assholes as "a Big Lie"! Having one's character besmirched even by good people incites bad feelings. How much more so by those known for low character like the Democrat Party. Even those with a history of civil behavior have their limits, especially when pushed by agents provocateur.
So the stand-up was heavy, was it?
I'm not familiar with the expression “the stand-up was heavy.” Is that one of those QAnon slogans like “where we go one we go all”?
"Sicced his minions"??? That's hilarious!!
The life-long Republicans who received death threats for doing their duty weren't laughing.
But potential isn't relevant to any trial or hearing.
Trump's knowledge of his minions' violent tendencies shows that he intended to incite an attack on the Capitol.
It's typical leftism. This is why it rendered the hearings as fallacious to deny the presence of McCarthy's selections. The presence of a Jim Jordan or a Jim Banks (as well as his other three picks) would balance out this criminal attempt to go over the top.
Now that's hilarious. Remember, McCarthy chose to withdraw all five names because he knew that the evidence would prove Trump's criminal attempt to steal the election.
How rare and out of character for anyone to get pissed after having their legitimate concerns dismissed by lying assholes as "a Big Lie"!
As Republican election officials have testified at the hearings, no one's concerns were dismissed. Every allegation was investigated, no matter how absurd it was. Trump chose to lie about what the investigations showed.
"I'm not familiar with the expression “the stand-up was heavy.”"
It's a reference to the clown you think is a legit exercise in fact finding and justice.
"The life-long Republicans who received death threats for doing their duty weren't laughing."
Really? The life-long Republicans who received death threats for doing what you think and they say is their duty know with certainty and with evidence Trump "sicced" "minions" to threaten anyone with anything more than a vote? Yeah. That's hilarious, Vinny.
"Trump's knowledge of his minions' violent tendencies shows that he intended to incite an attack on the Capitol."
So, he didn't have to "sic" them on anyone since he "knew" of their violent tendencies. And how has it been confirmed he knew ANYONE with said violent tendencies among the many thousands who attended his rally? Can you present that evidence for us here? That would be great.
"Now that's hilarious. Remember, McCarthy chose to withdraw all five names because he knew that the evidence would prove Trump's criminal attempt to steal the election."
How transparently absurd, Vinny. I'm surprised you can type that without embarrassment. McCarthy withdrew all five because he saw the rejection of Jordan and Banks by the hag as evidence of the obvious...that the hearings are a sham...what some have been calling a 3rd attempt to impeach Trump. Blocking those who don't by the election as legit and staffing the committee only with those who regard legit concerns about election fraud as purveyors of what they need folks to believe is "the Big Lie" fools no one except Trump-haters and lefties among the electorate. Those like you.
"As Republican election officials have testified at the hearings, no one's concerns were dismissed."
Like Dan, you cite "Republican election officials" in a lame attempt to suggest that by doing so, then no concern could possibly be legit. But anyone who refused to actually investigate claims as was the case with even Republican election officials is only covering their own asses. For example, some officials claim there was no fraud or irregularities by counting the same ballots which were said to be invalid. Easy to come up with the same vote totals by doing that. But it says nothing about the actual concerns about the validity of those ballots.
"Every allegation was investigated, no matter how absurd it was."
Absolute unmitigated bullshit as I've already demonstrated already. The only liars are you (by not giving a shit about the truth because the lie means Trump isn't president) and those you choose to believe.
Somewhere the truth exists. It may confirm a Trump loss. We'll never know because assholes don't want to know. The rest of us only wanted a legit count of legit votes and if it still turned out Trump (and America) lost, we'd hate it, but because we're not lying lefties, we'd accept it and plan for the next election...which we're doing in any case.
Really? The life-long Republicans who received death threats for doing what you think and they say is their duty know with certainty and with evidence Trump "sicced" "minions" to threaten anyone with anything more than a vote?
Here is another thing I find hilarious. When some lying apologist like Koukl tells you that accounts of Jesus' resurrection are based on the eyewitness testimony of men who had no reason to lie, you consider the matter settled. On the other hand, when the lifelong conservative Arizona House Speaker (who not only voted for Trump, but also would vote for him again) testifies under oath that Giuliani and Ellis never supplied the proof that he requested, you are happy to throw him under the bus as a RINO.
And how has it been confirmed he knew ANYONE with said violent tendencies among the many thousands who attended his rally? Can you present that evidence for us here?
Make up your mind. Is Trump a genius who offered Pelosi 10,000 National Guard troops because he foresaw the potential for trouble, or is he a dimwit who had no idea what his followers might do when he told them to march on the Capitol?
How transparently absurd, Vinny. I'm surprised you can type that without embarrassment. McCarthy withdrew all five because he saw the rejection of Jordan and Banks by the hag as evidence of the obvious...that the hearings are a sham...what some have been calling a 3rd attempt to impeach Trump.
Even Trump realizes that was a bad call by McCarthy.
For example, some officials claim there was no fraud or irregularities by counting the same ballots which were said to be invalid.
What the recounts showed was that the voting machines weren't changing votes from Trump to Biden. They also showed that no one had scanned Biden ballots multiple times. Of course that didn't stop Trump from repeating those lies.
Somewhere the truth exists. It may confirm a Trump loss. We'll never know because assholes don't want to know. The rest of us only wanted a legit count of legit votes and if it still turned out Trump (and America) lost, we'd hate it, but because we're not lying lefties, we'd accept it and plan for the next election.
I would like to think that even you know that this is false, but I've learned never to underestimate a Trumper's capacity for self-delusion.
You will never accept the results of the 2020 election because Trump will never accept the results of the 2020 election. Trump insisted before the election that the only way he could lose would be by theft. After the election, he started charging fraud before there had been any time to investigate. Your belief that the election was stolen is an article of faith that is impervious to objective evidence.
The evidence shows that Trump lied about “suitcases full of ballots” in Fulton County being scanned for hours, that he was told that it was a lie, and that he continued to repeat the lie, including on the morning of January 6th. Trump claimed that there were more than 10,000 dead people who voted in Georgia—the correct number was four. Trump claimed that there were more than 66,000 underage voters in Georgia—the correct number was zero. Trump claimed that there were more than 2,000 underage voters in Georgia—the correct number was zero. Trump has never backed off on any of these lies and I'm am not aware of any of you supposedly truth-loving Trumpers disavowing him or them. Of course, whenever any Republican does disavow one of Trump's lies, he is denounced as a RINO.
For those of us who believe in objective reality and the rule of law, there isn't any legitimate question about the outcome of the election. For Trumpers, there will never be any investigation that establishes the legitimacy of the election so long as Trump himself denies it.
"Here is another thing I find hilarious. When some lying apologist like Koukl tells you that accounts of Jesus' resurrection are based on the eyewitness testimony of men who had no reason to lie, you consider the matter settled."
Here's another thing I find hilarious: that you'll say dumbassed crap like the above and pretend there's truth in it. What proof have you that Koukl is a liar? What proof have you that I regard "the matter settled" based on one thing Koukl says? It's absurd and you're absurd for trying to run that crap here.
"On the other hand, when the lifelong conservative Arizona House Speaker (who not only voted for Trump, but also would vote for him again) testifies under oath that Giuliani and Ellis never supplied the proof that he requested, you are happy to throw him under the bus as a RINO."
No. But I would be happy to hear Giuliani's explanation for why he failed to come up with the proof he said he had. I'd hate for him to look like Adam Schiff. I'd be happy to hear Bowers cross-examined, but Pelosi made that impossible when she blocked McCarthy's selections for the panel. I would also like to hear nothing but testimony regarding the so-called "insurrection" which is the purpose we were told of the hearing. I would like to hear the FBI elaborate on their find of not coordinated plan to assault the Capitol. Stuff like that.
"Make up your mind. Is Trump a genius who offered Pelosi 10,000 National Guard troops because he foresaw the potential for trouble, or is he a dimwit who had no idea what his followers might do when he told them to march on the Capitol?"
Uh...there's a third option: Trump is a genius who offered troops because he foresaw attempts to disrupt the event by NeverTrumpers.
"Even Trump realizes that was a bad call by McCarthy."
I don't disagree, except insofar as leaving the other three on the panel serves to legitimize the sham proceedings. But at least it might also serve to mitigate the buffoonery to some extent.
"What the recounts showed was that the voting machines weren't changing votes from Trump to Biden. They also showed that no one had scanned Biden ballots multiple times."
I've seen no evidence to lend credibility to either of these statements. All I've seen thus far are assertions nothing untoward took place. That's not the same.
"I would like to think that even you know that this is false, but I've learned never to underestimate a Trumper's capacity for self-delusion."
Allow me to clear up your confusion: Voting for Trump isn't the same as being a "Trumper", which by your slinging of that word can only mean something negative. To the extent that I supported him the first time was due to the horror show a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been, given it would be no better than a continuation of the horror show that was the Obama presidency. To the extent I supported his reelection in 2020 was due to the beneficial impact for America because of his first four years...not "perfect", but definitely beneficial as any honest person will attest. To the extent I believe his fears about a stolen election to be legit is due to the four years of attempts to remove him from office by the very same people who expect me to believe the 2020 election was pure as the driven snow. Those fears remain justified due to the unwillingness by so many to simply accept without question a very questionable Biden win. But I've learned never to underestimate a Trump-hater's capacity for accepting criminality if it results in Trump losing.
"You will never accept the results of the 2020 election because Trump will never accept the results of the 2020 election."
I just stated my position on the 2020 election and you ignore it in favor of pretending my position depends on what Trump says. Trump could have never said a thing and the fact that states like Georgia ignored their own election laws would still be ignored by Trump-haters like you and Dan. Nationwide mail-in practices would still be most vulnerable to fraud and far more likely to have taken place given it's nationwide practice. Ballot harvesting and drop-box stuffing would still be a concern not fully or properly investigated. But you don't care about any of that, because Trump lost and that's all that matters to fools who don't pay attention. Now we're suffering as a nation like we haven't in generations. But hey...Orange Man Bad, right Vinny?
"Trump insisted before the election that the only way he could lose would be by theft."
A legit belief bolstered by a great economy, low unemployment rates, peace and other benefits of his presidency as well as its entirety marred by Dem attempts to remove him from office based on criminally false actions by his opponents. Yeah. It HAD to be fraud. You have no legit reason why he should not have been rewarded with a second term. NOT ONE!
"After the election, he started charging fraud before there had been any time to investigate."
Why wouldn't he given all I just said and more?
"Your belief that the election was stolen is an article of faith that is impervious to objective evidence."
Why wouldn't I given all I just said and more, along with the lack of objective evidence to counter any of it?
"The evidence shows...etc."
Provide some of it.
"For those of us who believe in objective reality and the rule of law, there isn't any legitimate question about the outcome of the election. For Trumpers, there will never be any investigation that establishes the legitimacy of the election so long as Trump himself denies it."
I point again to state election laws ignored by those not of the legislatures of those states. I've seen no response to legit charges made on that issue. States like Georgia either acted as the law dictates or it didn't. Where's the argument demonstrating they did?
For some Trump supporters, no evidence will change their minds, just as for Trump-haters, there's no evidence worth expending legit effort to investigate. For others of us who warned of the disaster (not knowing just how disastrous it would be) of a Biden win, and who paid attention to the lengths Dems would go to unseat Trump and lie about him, there's no need for Trump to have ever said a word. It's far less about Trump to us, than it is the corruption of those you support and the true danger THEY are to the Republic and continue to be. Hopefully there will be enough among you who will wake up. It seems to be happening, thank God.
I've seen no evidence to lend credibility to either of these statements. All I've seen thus far are assertions nothing untoward took place. That's not the same.
Georgia did three recounts. If the voting machines were changing votes or Biden ballots were being counted twice, that would have been apparent in the recount. You don't see any evidence because you cover your eyes and ears. That's not the same as there not being any evidence.
Voting for Trump isn't the same as being a "Trumper", which by your slinging of that word can only mean something negative.
You are right. Voting for Trump isn't the same as being a "Trumper." The hearings have demonstrated that many men who voted for Trump were unwilling to violate the Constitution at his demand. What makes you a “Trumper” is your willingness to undermine democracy and the rule of law by supporting his lies.
Trump could have never said a thing and the fact that states like Georgia ignored their own election laws would still be ignored by Trump-haters like you and Dan.
Once again, state courts determine whether elections are conducted in accordance with state law. If you believe in the rule of law, you accept the courts' decisions.
Uh...there's a third option: Trump is a genius who offered troops because he foresaw attempts to disrupt the event by NeverTrumpers.
I guess that is a third option, but it's monumentally stupid. Why would never-Trumpers disrupt the certification of Biden's win?
But hey...Orange Man Bad, right Vinny?
He is a vile turd. There's no doubt about that.
A legit belief bolstered by a great economy, low unemployment rates, peace and other benefits of his presidency as well as its entirety marred by Dem attempts to remove him from office based on criminally false actions by his opponents. Yeah. It HAD to be fraud. You have no legit reason why he should not have been rewarded with a second term. NOT ONE
I have the most legit reason possible why Trump shouldn't have been rewarded with a second term: he lost the election. You may have thought he did a good job, but given your fervent belief that he was unjustly maligned, why is it so inconceivable to you that a majority of the electorate didn't agree with you? Maybe they remembered the fantastic health care plan that he never delivered. Maybe they remembered all the times that he claimed that the coronavirus was going to magically disappear. The fact that you think people voted incorrectly isn't evidence that the election was stolen.
"Georgia did three recounts."
Big deal. Recount the same invalid ballots 100 times and the counts will be similar. They did little to weed out invalid ballots, but merely counted. There were complaints no effort to match signatures, as well as the problems I've already mentioned also not being addressed. Many of the signed affidavits were related to problems with the recounts. Which of them were confirmed as untrue and how many were left over?
" The hearings have demonstrated that many men who voted for Trump were unwilling to violate the Constitution at his demand."
The hearings demonstrate that many men will say anything. Asserting one is too devoted to the Constitution to violate it doesn't mean jack. It's evidence of nothing. If you're going to argue your case, you'll need to do better than that.
" What makes you a “Trumper” is your willingness to undermine democracy and the rule of law by supporting his lies."
Seeking the truth doesn't make me either pro- or anti-Trump. It makes me one who understands facts must be found before I choose to believe one thing as opposed to the other. You're too hateful toward Trump to do that. I'm not married to the guy at all. I simply knew how the nation would reveres course if he was not re-elected and that came to pass beyond my worst fears. I'd like to know why. Your Trump-hating kangaroo court isn't providing in that regard in the least. What's more, their job was supposed to the Jan 6 disturbance at the Capitol, not to re-litigate the stolen election. No one's undermined democracy and the rule of law like the Democrat party. It's what they do.
"Once again, state courts determine whether elections are conducted in accordance with state law. If you believe in the rule of law, you accept the courts' decisions."
Sure, Vinny. When I see a state court actually look at all the claims about how certain states acted contrary to their election laws, I'll consider whether or not to believe their rulings. I've not seen one do that yet. But hey...feel free to link to information for one that did.
"I guess that is a third option, but it's monumentally stupid. Why would never-Trumpers disrupt the certification of Biden's win?"
Two reasons:
1. Because there's no end to Dem attempts to destroy Trump in the minds of all Americans in order to keep someone they can't control out of office.
2. Because a peaceful petitioning of the Government for a redress of grievances was feared to result in a legit suspension of the count to hear those grievances.
It's monumentally stupid to pretend there's no ongoing intention to destroy Trump.
"He is a vile turd. There's no doubt about that."
Your TDS is showing. You lefty losers can't stand this regular guy was so far superior a president to anyone your political party of perversion ever put forth. Yours is the party of vile turds. Only vile turds dispute that.
"I have the most legit reason possible why Trump shouldn't have been rewarded with a second term: he lost the election."
That isn't a reason. That's the fraudulent outcome based on the actions of those too dishonest to present a legit argument why he shouldn't have been re-elected and too stupid to have a better plan to improve on what he did. I'm not surprised you'd lower yourself to respond in such an inane manner.
"You may have thought he did a good job, but given your fervent belief that he was unjustly maligned, why is it so inconceivable to you that a majority of the electorate didn't agree with you?"
The majority of the electorate rejecting him is what has not been proven to be true. You simply accept that it is because you hate the guy and don't want claims properly investigated.
"Maybe they remembered the fantastic health care plan that he never delivered. Maybe they remembered all the times that he claimed that the coronavirus was going to magically disappear."
That's funny. He delivered on more campaign promises than any Dem ever has. That he didn't get to all of them in only four years when Obama didn't do jack shit for the nation in twice the time is not an intelligent reason to reject him, especially in light of all he DID do. How freaking absurd you're being. As to Covid, so the f**k what? He made that claim in the early days only and most of those he should never have put on the Covid task force (like Fauci) didn't disagree initially. They all viewed as flu like, which pretty much disappears in the summer months...which Covid would have to a great extent if not for all the idiotic policies which interfered with the natural progression of the virus.
"The fact that you think people voted incorrectly isn't evidence that the election was stolen."
Well...it's a damned good thing I didn't make that argument EVER! But now that you bring it up, a poll showed that had the MSM and social media not blocked info regarding the Hunter Biden laptop, as many as 17% of Biden voters wouldn't have voted for him. That doesn't mean they'd have voted for Trump, but 17% not voting for Biden would've resulted in a Trump win, depending upon from where those votes would have been subtracted. The popular vote total for Biden would have been significantly below 70 million.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX2Ejqjz6TA&t=167s
You lefty losers can't stand this regular guy was so far superior a president to anyone your political party of perversion ever put forth
It's too bad that a majority of the voters didn't agree.
Big deal. Recount the same invalid ballots 100 times and the counts will be similar.
You are correct that the recounts didn't disprove all of Trump's lies. They did disprove two of the lies, however: (1) the recounts proved that the voting machines hadn't switched votes from Trump to Biden; and (2) the recounts proved that election worker weren't running Biden ballots through the machines multiple times. If Trump had any real evidence of fraud, he wouldn't have continued to repeat these lies after they had been debunked.
The hearings demonstrate that many men will say anything.
Since you refuse to watch the hearings, your opinion about what they demonstrate isn't worth much, is it?
Seeking the truth doesn't make me either pro- or anti-Trump.
If you were actually seeking the truth, you would want to hear the testimony of the officials involved.
When I see a state court actually look at all the claims about how certain states acted contrary to their election laws, I'll consider whether or not to believe their rulings.
This statement just shows that you don't believe in the rule of law.
1. Because there's no end to Dem attempts to destroy Trump in the minds of all Americans in order to keep someone they can't control out of office.
The best way to keep Trump out of office would have been to let Congress certify Biden's win.
2. Because a peaceful petitioning of the Government for a redress of grievances was feared to result in a legit suspension of the count to hear those grievances.
Every legitimate legal avenue to challenge the election had been exhausted by January 6th. It is monumentally stupid to suppose that anyone who hated Trump would interfere with the certification of Biden's win.
Well...it's a damned good thing I didn't make that argument EVER!
It's actually the only argument you've made. You said, “It HAD to be fraud.” And your reason for thinking it had to be fraud isn't the evidence. Your reason is your belief that Trump deserved a second term.
"It's too bad that a majority of the voters didn't agree."
A point which remains in contention with far more justification than the whining your party did since 2016 and throughout the Trump presidency. What's more, even if the majority did indeed refuse to re-elect Trump, it doesn't mitigate the fact he was a far superior president to any of those for whom you cast your votes.
"You are correct that the recounts didn't disprove all of Trump's lies. They did disprove two of the lies, however: (1) the recounts proved that the voting machines hadn't switched votes from Trump to Biden; and (2) the recounts proved that election worker weren't running Biden ballots through the machines multiple times. If Trump had any real evidence of fraud, he wouldn't have continued to repeat these lies after they had been debunked."
https://wentworthreport.com/2021/01/13/georgias-hand-recount-why-it-is-almost-certainly-wrong/
"Since you refuse to watch the hearings, your opinion about what they demonstrate isn't worth much, is it?"
You say that as if it would make any difference what my opinion was if I watched or not.
"If you were actually seeking the truth, you would want to hear the testimony of the officials involved."
If you actually cared about truth, you would care that McCarthy's selections were rejected by your hag, and that their absence negatively impacts the ability of this clown show to procure truth.
"This statement just shows that you don't believe in the rule of law."
It actually confirms it. What it doesn't do is allow for those like you the ability to pretend the election was fair and the results true.
"The best way to keep Trump out of office would have been to let Congress certify Biden's win."
The best way is with fair elections. 2020 wasn't an example of that. But you're right. To let Congress certify a stolen election has kept Trump out of office for the time being.
"Every legitimate legal avenue to challenge the election had been exhausted by January 6th. It is monumentally stupid to suppose that anyone who hated Trump would interfere with the certification of Biden's win."
Very few legitimate legal avenues to challenge the election were even heard, much less exhausted. It's monumentally stupid to suppose that anyone who hated Trump would not do anything to interfere with his rallies going on peacefully. Your party thought 2016 was a gimme against Trump. Had they any idea he could really win, much of the cheating you did in 20202 would have been employed in 2016. They're not about to let Trump have any possible way to defeat them again.
"It's actually the only argument you've made. You said, “It HAD to be fraud.” And your reason for thinking it had to be fraud isn't the evidence. Your reason is your belief that Trump deserved a second term."
Are you really this stupid? Look again at the what I said before your monumentally stupid response:
""The fact that you think people voted incorrectly isn't evidence that the election was stolen."
Well...it's a damned good thing I didn't make that argument EVER!"
I never said you voting stupidly is evidence the election as stolen. You voting stupidly is the result of you ignoring Trump's good work as president. That's a separate issue and not anything I've ever submitted as evidence of election fraud. Jeez!
A point which remains in contention with far more justification than the whining your party did since 2016 and throughout the Trump presidency.
To people who believe in objective reality and the rule of law, there is no contention about the results.
You say that as if it would make any difference what my opinion was if I watched or not.
No. I'm not under any illusion that the evidence would in any way alter your opinion.
Very few legitimate legal avenues to challenge the election were even heard, much less exhausted. It's monumentally stupid to suppose that anyone who hated Trump would not do anything to interfere with his rallies going on peacefully.
So I guess Mo Brooks was displaying his hatred of Trump on January 6th when he told those peace-loving Proud Boys and Oath Keepers that “This is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.”
In fact, the hearings have shown that it was Trump who would do anything to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. He was told repeatedly that there was no legal justification for the strategies he pursued, but he pursued them anyway.
You voting stupidly is the result of you ignoring Trump's good work as president. That's a separate issue and not anything I've ever submitted as evidence of election fraud.
Of course you have. You said, “It HAD to be fraud,” and you reached this conclusion before any evidence had been gathered. So in fact the only evidence you had for your conclusion was the fact that the election didn't go Trump's way i.e., people voted in a way that you consider stupid. I recognize that you don't understand that this is the logical implication of your position—just as you don't understand the logical implications of God ordering the stoning of young women—but that doesn't change the fact that your argument boils down to “I don't think that people should have voted for Biden, therefore they didn't.”
"To people who believe in objective reality and the rule of law, there is no contention about the results."
You're absolutely right. There's no contention among us. As for you who don't believe in those things, attacking SCOTUS justices and crisis pregnancy centers provides the latest proof.
"No. I'm not under any illusion that the evidence would in any way alter your opinion."
Actual evidence can. You expect this clown show will produce any?
"So I guess Mo Brooks was displaying his hatred of Trump on January 6th when he told those peace-loving Proud Boys and Oath Keepers that “This is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.”"
So you're really trying to say he was speaking directly to those two groups? Nice try, Sparky. No more fantasies. Stick to actual facts.
"In fact, the hearings have shown that it was Trump who would do anything to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power."
In fact, what is actually shown, but never honestly and accurately described as such, is it was Trump who would do whatever he thought he could to prevent the transfer of power to an usurper. And that's true even if you frauds could prove there wasn't enough cheating to change the outcome of the election...something no one seems to want to try to do.
"He was told repeatedly that there was no legal justification for the strategies he pursued, but he pursued them anyway."
By whom? By anyone about to lose the presidency? When all seems lost, it's nice to know no one will have to bother waiting for you to show up. But while you enjoy pretending he as unique in his attempts, you must keep pretending at least a half-dozen of your kind contested the last three presidential election won by Republicans, and they each did it with far less justification...and that's being gracious. But that's how it works with you people. It's OK until the other side tries it.
"Of course you have. You said, “It HAD to be fraud,” and you reached this conclusion before any evidence had been gathered."
Again you purposely ignore the evidence of Dem behavior over the period of Trump's presidency. You ignore the intentional disregard for state election laws in several states, the intentional suppression of info by your party, your media and your social media moguls. To suspect foul play is not in the least a conspiracy "theory", so much as a given regarding your kind.
"So in fact the only evidence you had for your conclusion was the fact that the election didn't go Trump's way i.e., people voted in a way that you consider stupid."
If only one person refused to vote for Trump in the last election, it would indicate one very stupid person. The outcome of the election is NOT what indicates stupidity, but only how widespread it was. And that becomes more true if your kind didn't refuse to respond to legitimate complaints of election fraud and chicanery. For if there was no fraud, that means there were indeed over 80 million really stupid people voting in the last election. That's sad for America!
"...your argument boils down to “I don't think that people should have voted for Biden, therefore they didn't.”"
I know you really need to believe that, but you really have to contort yourself to an incredibly painful degree to even pretend I said anything like that. It's absolutely laughable! You might not avoid using terms you don't understand, like "logical". There ain't a bit of it in that conclusion! But thanks for the laugh.
Oh, and please stop trying to pretend you have any understanding of Scripture. You're not fooling anybody.
Actual evidence can. You expect this clown show will produce any?
It already has. When people with knowledge of pertinent events testify under oath, that constitutes evidence. You seem to be operating under the delusion that testimony doesn't count as evidence unless the witnesses say what you want them to say.
So you're really trying to say he was speaking directly to those two groups? Nice try, Sparky. No more fantasies. Stick to actual facts.
Here are the actual facts: Brooks was speaking directly to the crowd gathered at the Ellipse. There were members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Therefore, Brooks was speaking directly to members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
In fact, what is actually shown, but never honestly and accurately described as such, is it was Trump who would do whatever he thought he could to prevent the transfer of power to an usurper.
You aren't watching the hearings, so you are just making stuff up.
And that's true even if you frauds could prove there wasn't enough cheating to change the outcome of the election...something no one seems to want to try to do
You clearly don't understand how the rule of law works. The person who is challenging certified election results has the burden of proof.
"It already has. When people with knowledge of pertinent events testify under oath, that constitutes evidence. You seem to be operating under the delusion that testimony doesn't count as evidence unless the witnesses say what you want them to say."
So you need to believe. It's nice to know that you wouldn't balk at testimony against you because the person had "knowledge of pertinent events" as opposed to testifying truthfully or substantively or accurately about those events in which you were involved. His testimony doesn't have to be any of those things, but courts and juries and the public should accept it as gospel because the person had "knowledge of pertinent events".
I'm well aware testimony under oath serves as evidence. I'm also well aware testimony by itself is not evidence enough of truth.
"Here are the actual facts: Brooks was speaking directly to the crowd gathered at the Ellipse. There were members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Therefore, Brooks was speaking directly to members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers."
Wow. That's an incredibly stretch. Like I said before...it must hurt to contort yourself in that manner. All you're doing here is engaging in typical leftist deceitfulness, pretending that Brooks is hoping there's someone in the crowd willing to take his words in the worst possible way in order for you to pretend he was inciting violence. But tell me...was he speaking only to the rank and file members, or more directly to those embedded with the groups to incite the rest to violence on behalf of those like you?
"You aren't watching the hearings, so you are just making stuff up."
No. It's the most obvious and accurate representation of Trump's motivations. He rightly sees Biden as an usurper and his party and their supporters like yourself as complicit in the coup which resulted in this stolen election. You people are those who are "just making stuff up" about Trump. I'm providing a more logical interpretation based on reality and the evidence of the previous 4-5 years.
"You clearly don't understand how the rule of law works. The person who is challenging certified election results has the burden of proof."
Duh! The "burden of proof" requires courts to review it. That didn't happen in the overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, even in the Georgia case you liars claimed was one of Trump "pressuring" Raffensperger to cheat, Raffie & Co chose not to look at the claims the Trump team had. You clearly don't understand how "burden of proof" works.
Vinny,
I meant to mention: before you again try to assert I don't know how the law works, recall the list of the several Constitutional violations by the moron imposed on the nation by stupid voters.
I'm well aware testimony under oath serves as evidence
Oh good. So you do know that the hearings are producing actual evidence. You simply denied it because it didn't fit the narrative you are trying to sell.
But tell me...was he speaking only to the rank and file members, or more directly to those embedded with the groups to incite the rest to violence on behalf of those like you?
Are you claiming that Brooks was working with Antifa and BLM rather than working with Trump?
He rightly sees Biden as an usurper and his party and their supporters like yourself as complicit in the coup which resulted in this stolen election.
No. Trump wrongly claimed that Biden was a usurper. There can't be any claim that he was justified in his belief when his own advisers, Republican election officials, and his own Justice Department told him that he had no evidence of fraud.
The "burden of proof" requires courts to review it.
There's nothing to review when the party with the burden of proof produces no evidence to support his claims.
. Indeed, even in the Georgia case you liars claimed was one of Trump "pressuring" Raffensperger to cheat, Raffie & Co chose not to look at the claims the Trump team had
Once again, you are making stuff up. The Georgia election officials and the U.S. Attorney for Georgia testified that they investigated all of Trump's claims. They found them to be without merit and they told Trump so. He just kept repeating his lies.
"Oh good. So you do know that the hearings are producing actual evidence. You simply denied it because it didn't fit the narrative you are trying to sell."
I've denied nothing but our assertion that because some dude said something, then it must be true and beyond all doubt. That's absurd. There are no shortage of stories of people convicted on the basis of false testimonies, be they lies, poor recollections or just plain inaccurate recounting of an event. But here, because those accused are Trump and his supporters, any testimonies against them are unassailable. Indeed, there is no one present on the committee to cross-examine them from a pro-Trump position. All on the committee are Trump-haters. You pretend they seek the truth. Honest intelligent people know that's not their intention.
"Are you claiming that Brooks was working with Antifa and BLM rather than working with Trump?"
Have the courage and integrity to be more specific about whom you're referencing.
"No. Trump wrongly claimed that Biden was a usurper. There can't be any claim that he was justified in his belief when his own advisers, Republican election officials, and his own Justice Department told him that he had no evidence of fraud."
More monumental stupidity on your part, if not willful deceit. Since you lean left, which is never certain. Those you list are not the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes evidence to prove fraud. While he may have been advised by his own people they hadn't enough to make the effort, that doesn't mean anything more than that. And that's assuming we're hearing from all of them and not just those who felt that way.
Your side are indeed usurpers, as your behaviors throughout Trump's time in office constantly, consistently and in a never-ending manner clearly has demonstrated. And to constantly harp about a lack of evidence (which your side isn't honorable enough to even review) doesn't mean there isn't any and anyone who says so is a rank liar. It's always about evidence enough to change the result.
As to election officials, it's the same story. In the meantime, your side ignores Dem tactics to block GOP observers from vote counts, even ignoring a court order to allow access by GOP observers. Yet you liars claim no fraud took place. I'm not going to go through the entire litany of methods your side perpetrated to steal that election. You're too busy pretending the hearings are producing a full accounting of the events of Jan 6.
As to "Trump's" DOJ, the feds just raided the home of a former DOJ official simply because he also believed the election was corrupt. What's more, it's long been suspected there were elements of anti-Trumpism within the DOJ. More and more you're proving yourself to be a rank partisan hack, rather than someone who cares about truth, the law, etc.
"Once again, you are making stuff up. The Georgia election officials and the U.S. Attorney for Georgia testified that they investigated all of Trump's claims. They found them to be without merit and they told Trump so."
Once again you insist on simply taking the word of anyone who opposes Trump, while I acknowledge a desire to have both sides considered. Trump's team insists Raffensperger did NOT meet with them to discuss the evidence the Trump team had. How did they prove they investigated ANYTHING? And if they truly had done so, why not meet with the Trump team in the limited time available to the team to have action taken about their concerns? So I've made up nothing. I'm hearing both sides and seeing one side failing to give a full accounting, while you are willing to swallow anything they say without question...like a typical leftist hack. That's not how finding the truth works.
I've denied nothing but [y]our assertion that because some dude said something, then it must be true and beyond all doubt.
I've never made that assertion. It is always possible that a witness is testifying untruthfully, and I don't take anything as beyond all doubt. Nevertheless, when I see multiple witnesses telling a consistent story under oath, I have to take that evidence seriously, particularly when the people who might contradict that story keep invoking the Fifth Amendment and defying subpoenas.
All on the committee are Trump-haters. You pretend they seek the truth. Honest intelligent people know that's not their intention.
As much as I dislike Trump, I want to know what really happened on January 6th, as well as how and why it happened.
While he may have been advised by his own people they hadn't enough to make the effort, that doesn't mean anything more than that.
You claimed that Trump ”rightly” believed that Biden was a usurper. Given that he came to this conclusion before the election without any evidence and his advisers told him that it wasn't true, it's plain that he believed it because he wanted to believe it, not because he was justified in believing it.
And that's assuming we're hearing from all of them and not just those who felt that way.
We're not hearing from all of them, but those who didn't feel that way keep invoking the Fifth Amendment and defying subpoenas.
Your side are indeed usurpers, as your behaviors throughout Trump's time in office constantly, consistently and in a never-ending manner clearly has demonstrated.
Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh. The Democrats were mean to Trump, so they're a bunch of cheaters. Why are you Trumpers such snowflakes?
As to "Trump's" DOJ, the feds just raided the home of a former DOJ official simply because he also believed the election was corrupt.
No. That's not why Clark's home was raided. Clark was intimately involve it Trump's attempts steal the election.
I'm hearing both sides and seeing one side failing to give a full accounting, while you are willing to swallow anything they say without question...like a typical leftist hack
You are not hearing both sides because you dismiss the testimony of one side without listening to it. The side that is failing to give a full accounting is the side that keeps invoking the Fifth Amendment and defying subpoenas.
"I've never made that assertion. It is always possible that a witness is testifying untruthfully, and I don't take anything as beyond all doubt. Nevertheless, when I see multiple witnesses telling a consistent story under oath, I have to take that evidence seriously, particularly when the people who might contradict that story keep invoking the Fifth Amendment and defying subpoenas."
Multiple witnesses have resulted in black folk being incarcerated...or worse...unjustly in the 1960's south. While multiple witnesses telling the same story is more compelling than merely one telling that story, it still remains insufficient for honest people to come to a legit conclusion, especially when there's no cross-examining by people not aligned with the Trump-haters who exclusively make up the panel. Given that undeniable fact, I totally understand why any Trump-supporter or a supporter of the claim of a stolen election would hesitate to put himself in a position of dealing with such a one-sided panel intent on finding fault instead of truth. What's more, if they simply tell a different story, that very same biased panel is just how likely to reject those who tell them what they want to hear?
"As much as I dislike Trump, I want to know what really happened on January 6th, as well as how and why it happened. "
You defense of this panel and this sham hearing belies that claim.
"You claimed that Trump ”rightly” believed that Biden was a usurper. Given that he came to this conclusion before the election without any evidence and his advisers told him that it wasn't true, it's plain that he believed it because he wanted to believe it, not because he was justified in believing it."
He believes it, as tens of millions do, because of evidence from before the election as well as that which has still is being uncovered this far after. I explained the evidence from prior. That alone justifies the belief that an incompetent like Biden could beat a guy who improved the nation so clearly over what Biden's former boss did to drag it down.
"We're not hearing from all of them, but those who didn't feel that way keep invoking the Fifth Amendment and defying subpoenas."
...for the obvious reasons already explained.
"Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh. The Democrats were mean to Trump, so they're a bunch of cheaters. Why are you Trumpers such snowflakes?"
Ah...I see...pointing out the obvious makes us whiny snowflakes. Were you saying that about all the Dems who contested every Republican win going back to the Reagan years? Have you even said that about your Hillary as she continues to whine about 2016, and all those like John Lewis who refused to attend Trump's inauguration? You're hilarious.
"No. That's not why Clark's home was raided. Clark was intimately involve it Trump's attempts steal the election."
Yeah. That's EXACTLY why Clark's home was raided and he was dragged out in his pajamas like he was some kind of drug dealer. This abuse of power is just one more example of what led to Jan 6. It is the core of "how and why it happened".
"You are not hearing both sides because you dismiss the testimony of one side without listening to it. The side that is failing to give a full accounting is the side that keeps invoking the Fifth Amendment and defying subpoenas."
You keep saying this crap as if we're dealing with a balanced inquiry. We're not. What's more, I do NOT need to waste my day sitting through televised presentations of this kangaroo court when I can see reports of it from more honest sources.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/oath-keepers-fbi-interviews-contradict-indictment-charges_4557284.html?est=rf%2FBYyVqT8KyHQj76ZIGjdLY%2BrC6OkiBzKRGXqVcmPM0GbGDo%2FGRdtL4qpCb
Well...this certainly conflicts with the implications of YOUR comments!
I explained the evidence from prior.
I know. Democrats weren't nice to Trump and you think that proves that the 2020 election was stolen.
By that logic, the millions that the Republicans spent on the Benghazi hearings trying to damage Hillary is proof that the 2016 election was stolen.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/oath-keepers-fbi-interviews-contradict-indictment-charges_4557284.html?est=rf%2FBYyVqT8KyHQj76ZIGjdLY%2BrC6OkiBzKRGXqVcmPM0GbGDo%2FGRdtL4qpCb
Well...this certainly conflicts with the implications of YOUR comments!
Well...that's a shocker! A white supremacist told the FBI that he hadn't done anything wrong.
https://youtu.be/KGxp64MeQ6A
The only thing more reliable than a white supremacist is a white-supremacist frozen-dinner heir.
""I explained the evidence from prior."
I know. Democrats weren't nice to Trump and you think that proves that the 2020 election was stolen."
They were more than merely "not nice", Vinny. They were maliciously lying about him, fabricating and contorting in order to portray him as illegitimately possessed of the presidency. If they merely stuck to their standard "Republicans suck" meme, that would be one thing. But they intentionally tried to unseat him through patently dishonest means, and tried to make the public believe those lies. It apparently worked with you and Dan.
"By that logic, the millions that the Republicans spent on the Benghazi hearings trying to damage Hillary is proof that the 2016 election was stolen."
You clearly don't understand the definition and/or concept of "logic", because I've not presented anything which leads to your laughable attempt to portray it. What was spent on the Benghazi hearings (poorly, I might add, as it led to nothing Clinton deserved) was intended to hold her accountable for her failings as US Secretary of State which resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three others, as well as to ascertain the details which left them unprotected. That's not "trying to damage Hillary", nor is it in any way comparable to that which Hillary did to interfere with the 2016 election and the subsequent attempts by her (and your) party to unseat Trump after he was legitimately elected. This is means ongoing contesting of the results of that election by many of the same assholes who whine about Trump contesting the 2020 results with far more legitimate evidence the same assholes aren't interested in investigating.
"Well...that's a shocker! A white supremacist told the FBI that he hadn't done anything wrong."
Well...THAT'S a shocker! You believing Oath Keepers are "white supremacists"...just like your party tells you to believe. I've not been able to find anything that suggests they're a racist group. But for now, the point of presenting that link...and as it seems clear by your jaded response...is that the info from that link never came up in any Jan 6 hearing by the noble seekers of truth Pelosi allowed on the panel. It's rather important to have the disparity discussed. Was it? I doubt it. They've shown an unwillingness to even vet their "bombshell" witnesses. No doubt they'll not do so for those they already hate.
"The only thing more reliable than a white supremacist is a white-supremacist frozen-dinner heir."
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, except that you'll believe anything you're told:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tucker-carlson-owns-swanson/
In the meantime, the link you clearly didn't watch lists all the people being attacked for two "horrors"...either being a supporter of Trump or for believing the election should be more deeply investigated given all the evidence it had been stolen. Then you dare question my regard for the Constitution and the rule of law! Incredible!
Post a Comment