Fiona Hill: "The president was trying to stage a coup"

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
The thieves and liars stole the election by fraud
A group of prominent conservatives has compiled a report pushing back against former President Donald Trump's claims suggesting the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Although Trump and his allies filed lawsuits in several states, the group is breaking down why those lawsuits were ultimately tossed out.

In the 72-page report, the group offered a breakdown of Trump's massive legal battle which spanned six battleground states including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

"For this Report, we examined every count of every case brought in these six battleground states. We include both a narrative for each state and an accompanying Addendum listing each case and its disposition. We conclude that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case."

"After reviewing the evidence presented in each court case and the post-election reviews with this lens, certain patterns emerge," they wrote. "Most obvious is that the former president’s rhetoric—before, during, and after the election—was not supported by the legal cases he tried to make or any evidence he introduced. Cases and reviews in the six battleground states included similar charges and similar dismissals by federal and state courts."

 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
"For this Report, we examined every count of every case brought in these six battleground states. We include both a narrative for each state and an accompanying Addendum listing each case and its disposition. We conclude that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case."

"After reviewing the evidence presented in each court case and the post-election reviews with this lens, certain patterns emerge," they wrote. "Most obvious is that the former president’s rhetoric—before, during, and after the election—was not supported by the legal cases he tried to make or any evidence he introduced. Cases and reviews in the six battleground states included similar charges and similar dismissals by federal and state courts."



Unfortunately this won't convince those who hold stubbornly to their delusion that TFG won in 2020.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass


Here's a transcript. It's so damning, how can any so-called patriot deny what Bannon is proposing, which Trump was all in on:

[Steve Bannon]: “What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”
Leaked Audio [Oct 31, 2020]:​
Before Election Day 2020, Bannon Said Trump Planned to Falsely Claim Victory.
[Excerpt 1, Steve Bannon]: “The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count — their vote is in the mail. And so they’re going to have a natural disadvantage, and Trump’s going to take advantage of it — that’s our strategy. Trump’s gonna declare himself a winner.“
“So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm. You’re going to have antifa, crazy. The media, crazy. The courts are crazy. and Trump’s gonna be sitting there mocking, tweeting [redacted] out, ‘You lose. I’m the winner. I’m the king.’”
[Audience laughter.]​
[...]​
“Then it doesn’t matter. Here’s the thing: After then, Trump never has to go to a voter again.”
“He’s going to fire Wray, the FBI director, fire [garbled]. He's gonna say '[redacted] you. How about that?'
“Because he's never going to — he's done his last election. Oh, he's going to be off the chain — he's gonna be crazy.”
[Audience laughter.]​
[Excerpt 2, Steve Bannon]: "Also if Trump is losing by 10 or 11 o’clock, it's going to be even crazier.” [cross-talk] “No, because he's gonna sit right there and say 'They stole it. I'm directing the Attorney General, to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states.'"
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Here's a transcript. It's so damning, how can any so-called patriot deny what Bannon is proposing, which Trump was all in on:

[Steve Bannon]: “What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”
Leaked Audio [Oct 31, 2020]:​
Before Election Day 2020, Bannon Said Trump Planned to Falsely Claim Victory.
[Excerpt 1, Steve Bannon]: “The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count — their vote is in the mail. And so they’re going to have a natural disadvantage, and Trump’s going to take advantage of it — that’s our strategy. Trump’s gonna declare himself a winner.“
“So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm. You’re going to have antifa, crazy. The media, crazy. The courts are crazy. and Trump’s gonna be sitting there mocking, tweeting [redacte] out, ‘You lose. I’m the winner. I’m the king.’”
[Audience laughter.]​
[...]​
“Then it doesn’t matter. Here’s the thing: After then, Trump never has to go to a voter again.”
“He’s going to fire Wray, the FBI director, fire [garbled]. He's gonna say '[redacted] you. How about that?'
“Because he's never going to — he's done his last election. Oh, he's going to be off the chain — he's gonna be crazy.”
[Audience laughter.]​
[Excerpt 2, Steve Bannon]: "Also if Trump is losing by 10 or 11 o’clock, it's going to be even crazier.” [cross-talk] “No, because he's gonna sit right there and say 'They stole it. I'm directing the Attorney General, to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states.'"
The man was brilliant. 😂😂😂

You poor schmucks. You really really miss him don't you?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass

US Democracy’s Survival Requires a More Powerful Response to January 6th


. . . . I’ve seen this play before, and it doesn’t tend to end well. I served for 34 years in the CIA’s Clandestine Service, fighting wars both hot and cold across largely autocratic landscapes of both adversaries and partners. In those missions, I spied on figures whose ideology often boiled down to the singular purpose of securing and maintaining power. I did so with hubris and sanctimonious certainty in America’s moral and political superiority. My confidence was bolstered by the positive ideals that America represented, a narrative that I wielded like a weapon with near religious zeal in suborning foreign agents and pressing foreign partners.

Today, however, we’re observing corrupt power-seeking behaviors practiced by Americans who had sworn the same oath to the Constitution that I had pledged. And while some actions are unquestionably insidious and mercenary, more disconcerting still is that many perpetrators justify their actions in ways that makes clear they believe just as ardently in the patriotic merit of their convictions.

A dictatorship depends on an ecosystem of control over the guns, cops, courts, spies, and cash providing it muscle, legitimacy, foresight, and finance. And that requires the complicity not only of individuals but of entire national institutions. The January 6th stories are all too familiar — ambitious ne’er-do-wells organized around a charismatic leader who serves as the lightening rod and can advance, or threaten, their personal interests. That leader must compromise and gain control over institutions that pose obstacles, and the most effective way is to seize them from within. Ironically, this is a feat accomplished best democratically, as Adolph Hitler did in 1930’s Germany, or by hijacking a popular revolt, as the clerics did in Iran in 1979 and the Muslim Brotherhood sought to do in Egypt during the Arab Spring.

Manipulating one’s target audience – in this case the public — with falsehoods and fear is a historically potent brew that stokes the resonating chords of victimization, racism, religious extremism, and nationalism. The formula has worked in the likes of Russia, Hungary, India, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, and Tunisia, to name only a few — countries with recent histories of popular movements that rattled the political equilibrium and challenged despots and autocracies, only to be passed up or stolen by still other autocratic leaders.

The Deliberate Clouding of Truth

The critical innovation defining the current generation is epitomized similarly by former President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin: the subjectification of truth itself. And this has been enabled by the revolutionary changes technology has brought to the way humans communicate, arguably our generation’s greatest information challenge. The deliberate clouding of truth to serve political ends is an obstacle faced as well by intelligence professionals in understanding adversaries like Putin when the lie becomes the liar’s reality. The Russian leader’s flawed strategic calculus in Ukraine, for example, was likely due in part to believing his own propaganda.

If America’s freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution and by individuals in institutions who pledge to protect that Constitution, revelations coming from the January 6th investigation should prompt us to question the reliability of those institutions and their workforces. My own confidence that career public servants will remain steadfast to laws, values, and oaths is not what it was even when I left the CIA in 2019. My faith in U.S. institutions has run up against the reality that even right and wrong has been made increasingly opaque by political leaders. What began with the clumsy suggestion of “alternative facts” has evolved into a more insistent redefining of truth to persuade a willing and eager audience anxious to feel validated.

While it is appropriate for even a democratically elected chief executive to select loyalists to steer agencies in alignment with the electorate’s mandate, the Trump team’s primary agenda became reminiscent of autocracies: regime preservation at any cost, never mind the GOP’s political platform, let alone their institution’s integrity. And the Trump administration’s methodology for securing control over the state was to target the Justice Department, the military, federal law enforcement, and the Intelligence Community, a subversive model I expect to see replicated by those who wish to follow in his footsteps. Even other federal agencies are not immune. A recent New York Times investigation suggests the Internal Revenue Service’s “random” selection of former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, for the most invasive type of audit might have been anything but random.

Other evidence further suggests that Trump and his closest associates prioritized control of the Justice Department, with its prosecutorial and investigative arms. His was a recipe that emulates foreign autocrats’ abuse of their Interior Ministries’ jurisprudence responsibilities, secret police, and internal spying capabilities. Not coincidentally, that has been the practice of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as he and Trump have been quite public in their mutual admiration. According to former senior Justice Department officials, “the former president aggressively prodded his attorneys general to go after his enemies and protect his friends and his interests.” When in December 2020, the Justice Department reportedly resisted Trump’s pressure to support bogus claims of election fraud, his own team drafted an executive order directing the Defense Secretary to seize voting machines. The military, after all, has the guns to intervene when all else fails. But Trump’s White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, pushed back hard, and the draft order was never issued. . . .
 

marke

Well-known member
A group of prominent conservatives has compiled a report pushing back against former President Donald Trump's claims suggesting the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Although Trump and his allies filed lawsuits in several states, the group is breaking down why those lawsuits were ultimately tossed out.

In the 72-page report, the group offered a breakdown of Trump's massive legal battle which spanned six battleground states including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

"For this Report, we examined every count of every case brought in these six battleground states. We include both a narrative for each state and an accompanying Addendum listing each case and its disposition. We conclude that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case."

"After reviewing the evidence presented in each court case and the post-election reviews with this lens, certain patterns emerge," they wrote. "Most obvious is that the former president’s rhetoric—before, during, and after the election—was not supported by the legal cases he tried to make or any evidence he introduced. Cases and reviews in the six battleground states included similar charges and similar dismissals by federal and state courts."

Sadly, these 'conservatives' have done nothing to disprove fraud in the election fraud cases still being litigated in court and cases which have not yet been fully investigated.

Tens of millions of Americans do not trust our election system and will not unless lawmakers do more to secure the system against fraud. Democrats oppose election security but that is because democrats have secured and maintained political power through fraud for decades and are not willing to give it up now. But if America is to be saved from moral and economic decline and destruction we must take back from corrupt democrat control the power over our elections.

In several large democrat voting wards the democrats have total control over voting machines and will not allow anyone, whether republican, law enforcement official, or American citizen, access to the machines or election data in spite of the well-known fact that voting machines can be and have been found to have been corrupted and wickedly manipulated by criminals for political reasons.

Some foolishly claim courts have proven voting fraud has not occurred by declaring they have seen no evidence. The shady attempt at confusing the facts is inexcusable. Here is an excellent article explaining the facts about evidence and proof:


The Difference Between Proof and Evidence

Sloppy thinkers—as most of us are these days—are prone to confuse the two, for they are related but not the same. Evidence is information that suggests a conclusion. Proof, on the other hand, is a collection of evidence that meets a sufficient standard. So while it’s absurd to say there’s no evidence of voter fraud, it’s not entirely unfair to say there’s not yet proof of voter fraud, depending on what standard we have in mind.

This misunderstanding causes a serious problem. Too many people are suggesting that a supposed lack of evidence should prevent any further investigation into the matter. A lack of proof, however, indicates no such conclusion. There are two key reasons that a lack of proof does not justify sweeping the matter under the rug the way much of the swamp is trying to do.

First of all, proof is the result of investigation, not its prerequisite. You don’t need proof before investigating a matter because proof is what you’re supposed to find (or not find) by its conclusion. In contrast, evidence alone is all you need to justify taking a closer look.

Most Americans are still old enough to remember the 2000 presidential election when Al Gore kept the matter in the courts until mid-December. We also remember some of the evidence that justified the investigation for so many.

There was the infamous “butterfly ballot” that might have confused voters and lead them to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan. There was the whole matter of hanging chads and whether to count those as true votes. Evidence like this was deemed sufficient warrant for recounts, investigations, and legal proceedings at the time.
 

marke

Well-known member
Unfortunately this won't convince those who hold stubbornly to their delusion that TFG won in 2020.
America needs to ignore the objections of democrats and secure elections from fraud in the future. We need this to restore confidence in our elections. There is absolutely no excuse for opposing election securities no matter how many whiners claim such securities inconvenience them.


America Won’t Trust Elections Until The Voter Fraud Is Investigated

BY: MATTHEW COCHRAN

NOVEMBER 08, 2020

We should not be surprised at what a mess this election has become, not only because of the uncompromising nature of our current politics, but also because of the warnings we received well beforehand. President Trump has been bringing up voter fraud long before Nov. 3, and the left had been weirdly insistent that he accept the results without double-checking the entire time.

Afterward, of course, the evidence for that fraud is rapidly piling up. There has been eyewitness testimony about falsifying the postmarks on late mail-in ballots. Election observers were being harassed and kept away from the counting tables in Detroit. Software glitches have been discovered switching votes from Trump to Joe Biden in Michigan, and the same software is being used in other battleground states.

There have been statistical anomalies like 90 percent voter turnout in Wisconsin and bizarre late-night vote spikes for Biden in several states. All of this evidence and more strongly suggest the Democrats and their media allies are indeed attempting to steal the election.

Despite this evidence of voter fraud, it’s not hard to find a gaggle of politicians and news organizations claiming that it doesn’t exist. So what are we to make of the many and varied claims that all of this publicly available evidence doesn’t actually exist?

Well, some of these denials are, no doubt, simply the work of liars—something of which there is no shortage in American public life today. People who deny reality when convenient simply need to be denounced as such rather than reasoned with.

Nevertheless, this is by no means always the case. We can persuade many Americans still if we understand what they are trying to say. Not everyone who declares or believes that there is no evidence is truly a liar. Rather, some might simply be mistaking a lack of proof for a lack of evidence.

 

marke

Well-known member
Here's a transcript. It's so damning, how can any so-called patriot deny what Bannon is proposing, which Trump was all in on:

[Steve Bannon]: “What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”
Leaked Audio [Oct 31, 2020]:​
Before Election Day 2020, Bannon Said Trump Planned to Falsely Claim Victory.
[Excerpt 1, Steve Bannon]: “The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count — their vote is in the mail. And so they’re going to have a natural disadvantage, and Trump’s going to take advantage of it — that’s our strategy. Trump’s gonna declare himself a winner.“
“So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm. You’re going to have antifa, crazy. The media, crazy. The courts are crazy. and Trump’s gonna be sitting there mocking, tweeting [redacted] out, ‘You lose. I’m the winner. I’m the king.’”
[Audience laughter.]​
[...]​
“Then it doesn’t matter. Here’s the thing: After then, Trump never has to go to a voter again.”
“He’s going to fire Wray, the FBI director, fire [garbled]. He's gonna say '[redacted] you. How about that?'
“Because he's never going to — he's done his last election. Oh, he's going to be off the chain — he's gonna be crazy.”
[Audience laughter.]​
[Excerpt 2, Steve Bannon]: "Also if Trump is losing by 10 or 11 o’clock, it's going to be even crazier.” [cross-talk] “No, because he's gonna sit right there and say 'They stole it. I'm directing the Attorney General, to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states.'"
If democrats did steal the election then Trump did win. Democrats claim they did not steal the election and point to the dismissals in several court filings as proof voter fraud did not occur. That is a lie. Dismissing a case for lack of evidence is not proof no evidence exists. Here is a good explanation of the difference:

The Difference Between Proof and Evidence

Sloppy thinkers—as most of us are these days—are prone to confuse the two, for they are related but not the same. Evidence is information that suggests a conclusion. Proof, on the other hand, is a collection of evidence that meets a sufficient standard. So while it’s absurd to say there’s no evidence of voter fraud, it’s not entirely unfair to say there’s not yet proof of voter fraud, depending on what standard we have in mind.

This misunderstanding causes a serious problem. Too many people are suggesting that a supposed lack of evidence should prevent any further investigation into the matter. A lack of proof, however, indicates no such conclusion. There are two key reasons that a lack of proof does not justify sweeping the matter under the rug the way much of the swamp is trying to do.

First of all, proof is the result of investigation, not its prerequisite. You don’t need proof before investigating a matter because proof is what you’re supposed to find (or not find) by its conclusion. In contrast, evidence alone is all you need to justify taking a closer look.

Most Americans are still old enough to remember the 2000 presidential election when Al Gore kept the matter in the courts until mid-December. We also remember some of the evidence that justified the investigation for so many.

There was the infamous “butterfly ballot” that might have confused voters and lead them to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan. There was the whole matter of hanging chads and whether to count those as true votes. Evidence like this was deemed sufficient warrant for recounts, investigations, and legal proceedings at the time.

More Evidence This Year Than in 2000

In 2020, the body of evidence eclipses that of 2000. Today, the confusion arises from half a dozen states rather than one. The reported incidents indicate outright fraud more than they do simple incompetence, especially since they all just happen to benefit the same can...
 

marke

Well-known member

US Democracy’s Survival Requires a More Powerful Response to January 6th


. . . . I’ve seen this play before, and it doesn’t tend to end well. I served for 34 years in the CIA’s Clandestine Service, fighting wars both hot and cold across largely autocratic landscapes of both adversaries and partners. In those missions, I spied on figures whose ideology often boiled down to the singular purpose of securing and maintaining power. I did so with hubris and sanctimonious certainty in America’s moral and political superiority. My confidence was bolstered by the positive ideals that America represented, a narrative that I wielded like a weapon with near religious zeal in suborning foreign agents and pressing foreign partners.

Today, however, we’re observing corrupt power-seeking behaviors practiced by Americans who had sworn the same oath to the Constitution that I had pledged. And while some actions are unquestionably insidious and mercenary, more disconcerting still is that many perpetrators justify their actions in ways that makes clear they believe just as ardently in the patriotic merit of their convictions.

A dictatorship depends on an ecosystem of control over the guns, cops, courts, spies, and cash providing it muscle, legitimacy, foresight, and finance. And that requires the complicity not only of individuals but of entire national institutions. The January 6th stories are all too familiar — ambitious ne’er-do-wells organized around a charismatic leader who serves as the lightening rod and can advance, or threaten, their personal interests. That leader must compromise and gain control over institutions that pose obstacles, and the most effective way is to seize them from within. Ironically, this is a feat accomplished best democratically, as Adolph Hitler did in 1930’s Germany, or by hijacking a popular revolt, as the clerics did in Iran in 1979 and the Muslim Brotherhood sought to do in Egypt during the Arab Spring.

Manipulating one’s target audience – in this case the public — with falsehoods and fear is a historically potent brew that stokes the resonating chords of victimization, racism, religious extremism, and nationalism. The formula has worked in the likes of Russia, Hungary, India, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, and Tunisia, to name only a few — countries with recent histories of popular movements that rattled the political equilibrium and challenged despots and autocracies, only to be passed up or stolen by still other autocratic leaders.

The Deliberate Clouding of Truth

The critical innovation defining the current generation is epitomized similarly by former President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin: the subjectification of truth itself. And this has been enabled by the revolutionary changes technology has brought to the way humans communicate, arguably our generation’s greatest information challenge. The deliberate clouding of truth to serve political ends is an obstacle faced as well by intelligence professionals in understanding adversaries like Putin when the lie becomes the liar’s reality. The Russian leader’s flawed strategic calculus in Ukraine, for example, was likely due in part to believing his own propaganda.

If America’s freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution and by individuals in institutions who pledge to protect that Constitution, revelations coming from the January 6th investigation should prompt us to question the reliability of those institutions and their workforces. My own confidence that career public servants will remain steadfast to laws, values, and oaths is not what it was even when I left the CIA in 2019. My faith in U.S. institutions has run up against the reality that even right and wrong has been made increasingly opaque by political leaders. What began with the clumsy suggestion of “alternative facts” has evolved into a more insistent redefining of truth to persuade a willing and eager audience anxious to feel validated.

While it is appropriate for even a democratically elected chief executive to select loyalists to steer agencies in alignment with the electorate’s mandate, the Trump team’s primary agenda became reminiscent of autocracies: regime preservation at any cost, never mind the GOP’s political platform, let alone their institution’s integrity. And the Trump administration’s methodology for securing control over the state was to target the Justice Department, the military, federal law enforcement, and the Intelligence Community, a subversive model I expect to see replicated by those who wish to follow in his footsteps. Even other federal agencies are not immune. A recent New York Times investigation suggests the Internal Revenue Service’s “random” selection of former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, for the most invasive type of audit might have been anything but random.

Other evidence further suggests that Trump and his closest associates prioritized control of the Justice Department, with its prosecutorial and investigative arms. His was a recipe that emulates foreign autocrats’ abuse of their Interior Ministries’ jurisprudence responsibilities, secret police, and internal spying capabilities. Not coincidentally, that has been the practice of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as he and Trump have been quite public in their mutual admiration. According to former senior Justice Department officials, “the former president aggressively prodded his attorneys general to go after his enemies and protect his friends and his interests.” When in December 2020, the Justice Department reportedly resisted Trump’s pressure to support bogus claims of election fraud, his own team drafted an executive order directing the Defense Secretary to seize voting machines. The military, after all, has the guns to intervene when all else fails. But Trump’s White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, pushed back hard, and the draft order was never issued. . . .
The survival of the democrat party depends on the successful persecution and prosecution of their enemies and the suppression of the overwhelming evidence of massive voter fraud in 2020. The survival of America, on the other hand, depends on the destruction of the voting fraud organizations currently corrupting elections in favor of the crooks and thugs.
 

marke

Well-known member
You're the one who thinks his reelection was stolen.

And no, I don't miss him a bit. Glad he's gone, hope he gets what he deserves for his crimes.
Democrats committed massive voter fraud in 2020 and continue to lie about it and cover up or destroy evidence of their fraud.


America Won’t Trust Elections Until The Voter Fraud Is Investigated

BY: MATTHEW COCHRAN

NOVEMBER 08, 2020
We should not be surprised at what a mess this election has become, not only because of the uncompromising nature of our current politics, but also because of the warnings we received well beforehand. President Trump has been bringing up voter fraud long before Nov. 3, and the left had been weirdly insistent that he accept the results without double-checking the entire time.

Afterward, of course, the evidence for that fraud is rapidly piling up. There has been eyewitness testimony about falsifying the postmarks on late mail-in ballots. Election observers were being harassed and kept away from the counting tables in Detroit. Software glitches have been discovered switching votes from Trump to Joe Biden in Michigan, and the same software is being used in other battleground states.

There have been statistical anomalies like 90 percent voter turnout in Wisconsin and bizarre late-night vote spikes for Biden in several states. All of this evidence and more strongly suggest the Democrats and their media allies are indeed attempting to steal the election.

Despite this evidence of voter fraud, it’s not hard to find a gaggle of politicians and news organizations claiming that it doesn’t exist. So what are we to make of the many and varied claims that all of this publicly available evidence doesn’t actually exist?

Well, some of these denials are, no doubt, simply the work of liars—something of which there is no shortage in American public life today. People who deny reality when convenient simply need to be denounced as such rather than reasoned with.

Nevertheless, this is by no means always the case. We can persuade many Americans still if we understand what they are trying to say. Not everyone who declares or believes that there is no evidence is truly a liar. Rather, some might simply be mistaking a lack of proof for a lack of evidence.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ

Democrats committed massive voter fraud in 2020 and continue to lie about it and cover up or destroy evidence of their fraud.
Even in the Republican Party, no one that matters agrees with you. Where does that leave you?
Every Republican agrees with that you idiot. Where does that leave you dummy? Boy you sure are dumb. lol.

l-intro-1603828318.jpg

(Republicans don't believe the massive voter fraud was massive enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election, but everything Marke said is true.)
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Republicans don't believe the massive voter fraud was massive enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election, but everything Marke said is true.
I'm sure @marke will be delighted to read your claim that all of his bluster about the election having been stolen from Trump is a lie.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
She's hardly citing TGP articles or the likes of 'Q' etc. All you seem to do these days is cry "dumb" with this stuff without any cogent argument as to why. "Lol".
"justsecurity-dot-org" is a major player in journalism, you're right [golf clap].

Meanwhile in reality:

The more the evidence comes out, it is clear that former President Trump received a lot of bad advice, but this just makes it clear that he did not take that advice, and he did the good legal thing to do whenever a political candidate suspects that election irregularities cost him his election; he brought 64 separate cases to court. He even got the SCOTUS to weigh in on one or two of them.

Therefore he was not trying to stage a coup. Therefore while he might have had advisors who advised him to try to stage a coup, which is what the evidence more and more tends to sustain, substantiate and support, he did not actually do it.

The OP's wrong, and has been wrong, for this whole time.

On record.

 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
"justsecurity-dot-org" is a major player in journalism, you're right [golf clap].

Meanwhile in reality:

The more the evidence comes out, it is clear that former President Trump received a lot of bad advice, but this just makes it clear that he did not take that advice, and he did the good legal thing to do whenever a political candidate suspects that election irregularities cost him his election; he brought 64 separate cases to court. He even got the SCOTUS to weigh in on one or two of them.

Therefore he was not trying to stage a coup. Therefore while he might have had advisors who advised him to try to stage a coup, which is what the evidence more and more tends to sustain, substantiate and support, he did not actually do it.

The OP's wrong, and has been wrong, for this whole time.

On record.

Was part of that bad advice taking to the stage and claiming victory a few hours after the first votes had been counted? He had no reason to suspect election irregularity, all the prime news outlets were forecasting swings towards Biden once the mail in ballots were counted and that's what happened. Cue a whole load of petulant shouting of fraud that his lawyers shied away from once in court and the whole thing was a debacle. Chances are there were those giving him good advice which is to say that there wasn't any widespread fraud but was the man child going to listen to that? Of course not, his fragile ego wouldn't permit him to do the decent thing, concede with good grace and aid a smooth transition of power. Instead there's been a complete load of farce with Powell and her kraken, Giuliani hosting press conferences outside of adult book stores and My pillow guy ranting away like a lunatic promising earth shattering evidence of a stolen election that predictably came to nought.

You can claim that the OP is wrong all you want, doesn't make it so. In fact, after recent revelations he's looking more and more culpable.
 
Top