“Treason Is A Matter Of Dates”: Democrats Denounce Republicans For The Same Challenge They Previously Made To Republican Presidents

Napoleon once said “treason is a matter of dates.” The Democrats seem to have taken Napoleon’s words to heart in declaring Republicans traitors or anti-Democratic in their planned challenge the certification of electoral votes next week. Both the media and Democratic members have advanced this narrative despite Democratic members repeatedly raising such challenges in the past. In the few acknowledgments of that history, Democrats seem to be advancing a simple and familiar defense: Trump. Once again, open hypocrisy is negated by Trumpunity. After all, they cannot be anti-Democratic because they are Democrats. That conclusory position was evident in the spin this week on CNN by former California Sen. Barbara Boxer who led such a challenge to the 2004 election results.

In January 2005, Boxer joined former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones to challenge George W. Bush’s victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the state of Ohio. I was working for CBS in that election and shared concerns over the voting irregularities. At the time, Boxer argued that Republicans had engaged in voter suppression that contributed to Bush’s victory.  The media and Democratic leadership was highly supportive. Indeed, many who are condemning the challenge today heaped praise on Boxer in 2004. There was no hue and cry in the media over anti-democratic measures and refusing to respect the election results.

For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the current challenge an assault on democracy but, in the 2004 election challenge, she praised Boxer’s challenge as “witnessing Democracy at work. This isn’t as some of our Republican colleagues have referred to it, sadly, as frivolous. This debate is fundamental to our democracy.”

Notably, many Democrats like Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., raised analogous complaints over voting systems and insisted that “as Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country.”

Sen. Dick Durbin has also denounced the challenge this year but took to the Senate floor to praise Boxer in 2005.  He declared “Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”

Now however Democrats are claiming that it is unfair to compare their earlier actions and statements to the present day.  As we have seen in other areas, such clearly conflicting positions present little problem for Democratic politicians when they are not being raised or challenged in the media. In today’s siloed media and politics, Democratic voters are largely protected from such counter viewpoints.  Boxer’s interview is an example of the light treatment given to such members.  She was left largely unchallenged on clearly opportunistic and assailable positions in the CNN interview.

Boxer insisted that the challenge had “nothing to do with overturning the election” because it was only brief and would not succeed.  This current effort will also fail after a debate on some of the same issues of voting irregularities. Nevertheless, Boxer insisted “No, why would I regret spending an hour talking about the right to vote? Not at all. If these Republicans are going to lie about it and say it’s the same thing, that’s on them, and I’m sorry they’re doing this.”

CNN simply carried that transparently hypocritical spin without meaningful challenge. After all, this is deemed spin, not lies. While MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell (and recently Jake Tapper) have pledged not to interview Trump figures because they are “liars”, Democratic members can voice absurd denials without challenge. The fact is that this is an important interview despite the absence of a substantial questioning. It is information, not disinformation.  The problem is the biased approach in booking such political figures depending whether they support or oppose Trump.

Ultimately, this is not “on them.” And it is on Boxer because it is the same thing. However, I did not view Boxer as engaging in an attack on democracy by using her right to object in 2005 and I do not view those objections today as anti-democratic.  I did not support the challenge in 2005 and I do not support this challenge. Yet, this is a legal challenge under constitutional and statutory law. Yet, Democrats and media outlets like CNN want to portray the vote as virtually unprecedented and even treasonous.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told CNN that members of Congress who question the election results “are bordering on sedition and treason.” That would mean more than 70 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of Democrats nationwide are potentially traitors for believing Trump won. Shaneen and her colleagues denounced Trump for calling people traitors and sought to protect officials who denounced his use of the label “enemies of the people” against reporters. Just two years ago, Trump was called a Stalin for using such labels by Democrats. It is same position taken recently before the Supreme Court by Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who called a legal challenge to the election “seditious.” Of course, the use of the courts or Congress to raise such objections is the very opposite of sedition, which seeks to overthrow the legal system.

As I noted earlier, Democrats did not accuse their colleagues of treason or sedition when they sought to block the certification of Ohio’s electoral votes in Congress in 2004. They did not call Hillary Clinton traitorous for advising Biden not to concede any Trump victory on Election Night. They did not describe members of Congress or the media as traitors for repeatedly declaring Trump “illegitimate” over the last four years.

Thus, in the end, as Napoleon said, “treason is a matter of dates.” And the key date in the United States, for now, appears to be Nov. 7 — the day the media declared Joe Biden the presumptive winner. All court challenges then became unethical for lawyers and all congressional challenges became sedition for members. It is just a matter of dates.

249 thoughts on ““Treason Is A Matter Of Dates”: Democrats Denounce Republicans For The Same Challenge They Previously Made To Republican Presidents”

  1. We are entering into a bizarre situation.
    At issue is the question over the legitimacy of the election.

    I wonder why Turley nor other esteemed legal minds never really addressed the issue of the PA court’s ruling concerning laches.
    The court dismissed the question of Act 77 and the state’s constitution challenge as being too late.

    Yet how?
    The serious implication of this ruling is that it allows for laws to stand even though they violate the state’s constitution.
    Imagine if some creative politician pulled a Pelsoi and buried a legal change within a much larger bill. A year or two passes before anyone notices or takes action… any constitutional challenge would be voided because of laches.

    This makes no sense, yet here we have a judge making that ruling.

    Why has no one challenged this? How can one apply the principles of laches to a constitutional challenge?

    Boggles the mind.

    Note: This would apply to PA and other states where they passed legislation which is orthogonal to the state’s constitution and thus impacted the election.
    Pandemic or not, its a matter of law. One which the Supreme court of Wisconsin held when they determined that COVID-19 did not qualify as a reason for an absentee ballot. While the court did not invalidate the certification, it did open the door for the state’s legislature to do just that.

    And when you look at PA, WI, and GA alone… removing these electoral votes would be enough to stop either candidate from earning 270 votes.

    And this also goes to the TX case. The argument of standing. Allito had it right. Hear the case including an argument as to how they had standing.

    Seems the courts dropped their collective ball on this one.

    1. Ian, the call by the court was no doubt in large part based on available choices. They could agree with the plaintive and throw out tens of thousands of votes or tell him – as they did – “You’re too late and you could have challenged before the election”. Kelly won a primary with this rule in place and had no complaint then. The courts should value ballots highly and they usually do, unlike the GOP which is asking for millions of voters to be disenfranchised so they can “win”. F… them!

  2. I am sorry, sir, your reference is wrong. “The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates” should be attributed to Alexandre Dumas in The Count of Monte Cristo. Again, Napolean was as corrupt a politician ever.e would have loved Chuck E. Schumer.

  3. The 2000 fight was about 500 votes in one to change the result. There wasn’t a challenge in January.
    The 2004 challenge was because of people having to wait in line nearly a day to vote in Ohio (and officials were later convicted of interfering with a recount of 2004, in 2007).
    The 2020 challenge is without any evidence of wrongdoing, and arguing against their own party’s officials.

  4. Here’s how the LA Times described Boxer’s objection, which was a result of the excessive queues to vote in Ohio, at the time:

    “The protests lodged by Boxer and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, both Democrats, spurred House and Senate debates on voting problems in Ohio, the state that decided November’s election. Boxer said her purpose was not to overturn Bush’s reelection but, rather, to focus new attention on flawed voting practices. She also said she regretted not raising a similar objection over the Florida results in the 2000 election, which narrowly tipped that year’s White House contest to Bush.”

    Differences to now:
    Kerry had conceded days after the election, Trump still has not.
    The Democrats had accepted the result of the election.
    Boxer did not have the support of a large part of her party, 11 senators is over 20% of the Republicans in the Senate.
    There were genuine “problems in Ohio as voters being forced to stand in line at some precincts for 10 or 12 hours, some voters being told that the election would be held on Nov. 3, not on Nov. 2, the actual election day, and the lack of a paper trail for votes cast in electronic machines.”

    It’s not unreasonable to suggest that it lead to the paper trails now used in most states, including ones that were recently recounted twice in Georgia.

    The “unprecedented allegations” this election are due to an unprecedented campaign of lies and propaganda, not evidence of any kind.

      1. And I’d add the lack of Gore getting on the phone to extort the AG in Ohio and getting taped while doing it to the mix. I believe the AG was Blackwell at the time, a republican, so the chances of it having an effect were zero. Less than zero, actually. Seems that’s what these gossip column repubs are counting on now, a freebie to make noise with no chance of it overturning the clearly resolved election so they can fund raise off MAGA nation as they try to take trump’s place. Extremely short sighted as well, the MAGATS will never regard them as being equal to trump. No overt racism. No reality show reruns to glower over. No twinkle in the eye while delivering punishment to the demographics they love to hate. Reminds me of Hollywoeod’s m.o. >> make something identical to a previously successful show/movie only just twist it a little different in the next version. Trouble wih the theory is that it plays to mediocrity while trying to bottle and mass produce a unique essence. Just as doomed to failure with Hawley et al.

        Elvis Bug

  5. Turley seems to ignor, forget, did not bother to notice…the MANY time Trump has accused others of treason. Again, very one sided!

  6. “Remember when the Democrats challenged the electoral vote count in 3 elections over 20 years?”

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/remember_when_the_democrats_challenged_the_electoral_vote_count_in_3_elections_over_20_years.html

    “What do 2001, 2005, and 2017 have in common? We inaugurated three GOP presidents, and Democrats challenged their electoral vote each time. Yes, three for two, or three times for the last two GOP presidents sworn in.”……… First, elections can be challenged, which is why the U.S. Constitution calls on the U.S. Congress to confirm the results. Democrats should know this because they’ve challenged three elections in twenty years.

    Second, what’s wrong with hearing about vote fraud or whatever? Seventy-five million people would like to hear about it even if it does not change the outcome.”

    Their fear is driven by the same fear that a criminal experiences at the beginning of his or her trial. They know that they are guilty as charged, and all of the evidence points to their guilt.

    Whereas an innocent person accused of a crime is eager to go to trial in order to prove their innocence. Because they know that the lack of evidence will prove their innocence.

    So, anyone loudly denouncing any challenge to the election results is just another guilty dog barking first and loudest.

    Were they not guilty, they would welcome the challenge.

    1. Exactly Rhodes, that’s why the GOP Senators were so eager to hear witnesses in Trump’s impeachment hearing.

      1. Were the democrat fabrications not actually heard in that charade?

        Of course, they were.

        Why so frantic, Joke Friedbrain, Demented Joke Buydem and Can’t-Get-A-Dollar-Can’t-Get-A-Vote-Eminently-Ineligible-Barren-Canadian-Hyphenate-Commie-Lie-Willy’s-Ho-Riss, who rented a nice white family for this election, won, right?

        1. HOW DARE YOU CONDEMN ka-MAW-la, a DNC woman, who amassed a YUGE 2% of approval among HER FELLOW DEMONKRAPS when she dropped out of the race, then promptly, in the typical act of a DEMONKRAP eating its young, blamed HER FAILURE ON HER FELLOW DEMONKRAPS FOR BEING “SEXIST!” Stephen King can’t imagine fiction better than that!!!

          If some DEMONKRAP poster can find a video of any politician of similar stature to ka-MAW-la, with similarly hateful, stuck up, and obnoxiously nasal voice, please do so now.

      2. Thanks for proving my point, Joey.

        If you think that was wrong, then apparently you’re a big believer in the fallacy that two wrongs make a right.

        But you also just inadvertently admitted guilt.

    2. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to confirm the results. So quote me the part of the US Constitution where it says they can or STFU.

      1. “The Constitution does not give Congress the power to confirm the results. So quote me the part of the US Constitution where it says they can or STFU.”

        There is a problem when any or all three branches of government deliberately ignore what’s in the Constitution for their own political agenda. The passage of the Affordable Care Act was one such instance. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or imply that the federal government has the power to compel an individual to purchase a product or service, yet that’s what happened with the individual mandate. And the majority (especially Chief Justice Roberts) can contort themselves into saying it’s a tax, but the Constitution cannot force anyone to engage in commerce or face a fine.

        1. Congress has the power to tax for ONLY “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding, any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth. The right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution, and is, therefore, absolute, denying Congress any power to “claim or exercise dominion over” or possess or dispose of the private property or individuals.

          The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility
          subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Depts Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
          ________________________________________________________

          Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

          The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
          ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

          5th Amendment

          No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      2. Evidence and probable cause of election corruption and vote count tampering are crimes constituting grievances.

        Congress has the power to entertain petitions for redress of grievances.

        Crimes shall be tried by juries and Congress may legislate, at any time, the place or places.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        Article 3, Section 2

        The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

  7. Note: Trump can go to hell for not pardoning Snowden and Assange his first day in office, and for spending his days Tweeting instead of working for justice, and for being a prick and a disgusting whore mongering doofus. Foy saying he hates the deep state while empowering it. Trump pardons cold blooded murderers of Iraqi civilians while letting Snowden and Assange rot, esp. after both helped that disgusting pig Trump get elected.

    That said, the Dems can go to hell too. They openly questioned 3 prior POTUS elections. And yet now, they act as if the GOP should be condemned for doing the same thing the Dems did prior: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/remember-when-democrats-challenged-electoral-vote-count-3-elections-over-20-years

    I suspect Utah Governor Spencer Cox would make a great POTUS; problem is he’s a Mormon and I doubt he wants that sucky job anyway. Why is it that the people who most crave that job are the worst candidates for it?

    Nikki Haley? Yeah, we really need another warmongering scum bag for POTUS like Obama, right? Please God, no more Trump. Make it stop.

  8. Let’s review: Trump lost by 7 million votes and 70 or so electoral votes. Sure, people can challenge things as per what the rules and guidelines allow. Repubs have lost around 60 times in the courts in the election. Grain prices have skyrocketed up 25% in the states since the election because the market hates trump’s tariff taxes and the fact he severly damaged grain agreements with the Chinese. The currency spreads have turned favorable for the usd since the election against the pound, eurodollar and aussie dollar….

    This all just points to two facts: the world is looking very favorably toward a change of power in the American executive branch. So do the majority of the American people since they’ve never voted for trump in the popular vote.

    Want to review the American electoral process??? I’m all for it…, but not how repubs want it done which is just in races they lost. Let’s review everything: gerrymandering congressional districts, foreign interference, voter suppression, dark money, influence peddling. Hell let’s review the skew between polling in the McConnell and Graham senate races and them coming out ahead in votes. Put it all on the table. Hell…, a 10 day review? We need a 10 year review…

    And I wish I could say Dems on their own would run the ads in future campaigns against all these repubs signing on to this challenge and point out to their constituents that their representatives have taken a stand against their votes counting. It will probably be left for the Lincoln Project to do it though.

    This may very well be permissable what repubs are doing, but it’s flagrantly stupid. Basically just a dying wail of a party that, without outside intervention, can’t stand up against the demographic wave about to break over their heads.

    And on a different note: those pics Graham and McConnell of themselves getting covid vaccinated at the front of the line after doing nothing to hold trump accountable for his epic pandemic response fail is the definition of tone deaf. And want to go fascist because Josh Hawley is so enamored of it??? Well maybe when he stands up to baby talk on the senate floor things should turn Putin style and he should get black bagged and dragged away.

    Let’s get this party started.

    Elvis Bug

    1. “Grain prices have skyrocketed up 25% in the states since the election because the market hates trump’s tariff taxes and the fact he severly damaged grain agreements with the Chinese.”

      That is a pathetically poor analysis. Prices, including grain prices, are forward, not backward, looking. Those tariffs started and proliferated in *2108*. And, in fact, right after their imposition — by both sides — grain prices *plummeted*. I think that tariffs are suicidal. But you can’t blame them for the *current* jump in grain prices. Try these, real world, factors: China’s hog market is rebounding. There are droughts in Brazil and Argentina, and an export ban in Argentina.

    2. WHAT ARE DEMOCRATS SO MORTALLY AFRAID OF?

      74+ MILLION VOTERS AND 2,547 COUNTIES EQUATE TO THE ACTUAL TRUMP LANDSLIDE VICTORY
      __________________________________________________________________________________
      __________________________________________________________________________________

      IN THE CASE OF 2020 ELECTION CORRUPTION AND VOTE COUNT TAMPERING THERE EXIST PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH COMPEL A TRIAL.

      IN THE NFL, THE CASE IS HEARD IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IMMEDIATELY.
      _________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________

      1. NFL REPLAY REVIEW – CHALLENGE FLAG BY COACH
      ___________________________________________

      NFL Rule 15, Section 1

      SECTION 1 – INITIATING A REPLAY REVIEW

      ARTICLE 1. COACH CHALLENGES

      Each team is permitted two challenges that will initiate Instant Replay reviews:

      The Head Coach can initiate a challenge by throwing a red flag onto the field of play before the next legal snap or kick.
      A team that commits a foul that prevents the next snap can no longer challenge the previous play. The non-fouling team can still challenge the previous play, and both teams can benefit from the review.
      The Head Coach may challenge on-field rulings listed in Section 3, except for those plays that only the Replay Official can challenge (Article 2).
      Each challenge requires an available team timeout. A team that is out of timeouts, or has used all its available challenges, may not attempt to initiate a challenge.

      A team that initiates a challenge when the team is not permitted to challenge will be charged a team timeout.
      _____________________________________________________________________________________
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      2. U.S. CONSTITUTION TRIAL BY JURY – REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
      ______________________________________________________

      1st Amendment

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      _______________________________________________________

      Article 3, Section 1

      The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
      __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Article 3, Section 2

      The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

  9. Every governing official (local, state and federal) swear supreme and superseding loyalty oath (in their job authorities) to uphold the U.S. Constitution. No official swears a loyalty oath to the people nor the nation directly. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is more clearly clarified in federal statute Title 5 US Code 3331.

    Congress should be embracing the most loyal Americans like Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou (served years in prison) and Chelsea Manning. These brave Americans are the role model for loyalty in the American system.

    1. …and Reality Winner.

      That said:

      Hear, hear.

      Zersetzung is America’s game against its own citizens. Many “good Americans” like to play.

    2. Chelsea Manning joined the military. Eph her for that alone. God demands we as mortals have sympathy toward our earthly detractors, which command I find almost impossible for war mongers.

      My view of the military and its members mirrors that of the character Lt. Cmdr. Charles Edward Madison (James Garner) in my nominee for the all time best movie The Americanization Of Emily: the only true war heroes are the alleged “cowards” who refuse to fight. If you have not seen the movie, you have no idea the masterpiece you missed. (War mongers, blood profiteers and members of the MIC insert Satanic loving screed here now.)

      Madison’s anti-war dialog to the surviving spouse of an alleged British WW2 hero is among the world’s greatest in all movies. Prior to Madison’s speech, the woman lives her life in a strange daze: unable to cope with her husband’s premature death she talks to her daughter (the then-gorgeous Julie Andrews) as if her husband is still alive. Finally, Madison’s speech knocks her to her senses with its honesty and directness. Her husband died needlessly. Her denial of that fact caused her temporary insanity.

      Patrick Buchanan proved WW2 was “Unnecessary.” Wiki states that in current wars 10 non-combatant civilians die per each military fighter. If you promote war for any reason then you conscript 10 innocents to die for each military member.

      Among the biggest crocks of crap every told is that military members who die in battle “sacrificed their life for others” as did Jesus. Instead, Jesus states that if you harm a child it’s better for you to be drowned with a millstone around your neck in the ocean. If you are not convinced of the torture of drowning, read The Perfect Storm, where the author Junger describes it in segments of fractions of a second. There’s few worse deaths.

      Ask yourself how many children die in war, how many are orphaned then rethink that war mongering myth about serving Jesus with a gun you pathetic idiot. If you wear a military uniform your primary officer is Satan.

  10. Consider this. Turley believes it’s perfectly understandable that 70% of Trump supporters refuse to accept 60 judicial reviews which resoundingly ruled against Trump. JT believes 51 million Trump supporters have every right to refuse to accept countless certifications & verifications of Biden’s victory by Homeland Security, Republican governors & state officials, federal judges, official Electoral College electors, Bill Barr, the Justice Department & the Supreme Court. Turley finds 51 million Trump supporters are absolutely right to believe Trump’s relentless claims that he won in a landslide & easily won all the swing states.

    JT publicly condemns Durbin, Boxer, & Jake Tapper while ignoring Louie Gohmert’s inflammatory proclamation yesterday that since the courts have now ruled decisively against Trump’s attempts to overturn election results, “in effect, the ruling would be that you gotta go to the streets & be as violent as Antifa & BLM. “

    No big deal when Congressional Republicans incite millions of Trump supporters to violence, right JT?

    1. Racepace, Turley believes what his handlers at Fox and the GOP tell him to believe then writes a pretend column about his “concerns:”.

    2. Yes. 70+ million Trump supporters have the right to believe anything they want. As far as violence goes, Trump supporters aren’t like Lefty mobs, burning, looting and assaulting innocent people just because… No, Trump supporters will defend their lives, liberty and property.

      1. “Yes. 70+ million Trump supporters have the right to believe anything they want. ”

        Yes, and do believe anything they want. Hey, ignoring the news and fact reporting is so liberating until you wake up and your unpopular leader loses the vote AGAIN!

        Proud Boys roamed the streets of DC attacking people last month during the last Trump Cult rally.

      2. Olly, I stand corrected. I’ll take your word that 100% of Trump supporters (70+ million) refuse to accept countless certifications & verifications of Biden’s victory by Homeland Security, Republican governors & state officials, federal judges, official Electoral College electors, Bill Barr, the Justice Department & the Supreme Court. Sorry about underestmating how many Trump supporters refuse to believe the resounding confirmation by Republican Governors, state officials, federal judges & other US government agencies that Biden won a free & fair election.

        1. I stand corrected.

          And yet you remain intellectually dishonest. Let’s try again for the logic and reading comprehension impaired:

          70+ million can believe what they want does not necessarily equal 100% believe the same thing.

          Try again.

          1. You’re funny, Olly. “Intellectually dishonest…logic & reading comprehension impaired.” I pointed out that Turley said 70% of Republicans refuse to accept Biden won a free & fair election. And JT declared that after Republican Governors & State officials in Georgia & Arizona confirmed Biden won those states. That’s after federal courts rule against Trump’s numerous lawsuits to invalidate millions of votes. That’s after Bill Barr said the Justice Department hasn’t found any voter fraud evidence to reverse election results.

            Believe whatever you want, Olly. Just try to refrain from reflexively attacking anyone who disagrees with you. Cheers.

            1. I pointed out that Turley said 70% of Republicans refuse to accept Biden won a free & fair election.

              You’re still being dishonest.

              70 million x 70% = 49 million. Not the lie you began with:

              I’ll take your word that 100% of Trump supporters (70+ million) refuse to accept countless certifications & verifications of Biden’s victory

              Conservatives understand that no lie is necessary when the truth is on your side.

              1. This is all about math equations? I quoted Turley who said 70% of Trump supporters dispute Biden’s victory. 70% of Trump’s 74 million votes = 51 million.

                You upped the number to 70+million Trump supporters who dispute BIden’s victory. For the sake of argument, I rounded that off to 100%.

                So tell me, Olly, does a fine conservative like you believe Trump has the truth on his side when he just told Raffensperger “There’s no way I lost Georgia. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.” Does a conservative like you believe Trump’s claim that he won the election in a landslide & there’s no way Biden received 81 milliion votes?

                If you do believe all of Trump’s claims about massive voter fraud, feel free to post the links to your indisputable supporting evidence, Olly.

                1. For the sake of deceit, I rounded that off to 100%.

                  FIFY. So no, not math equations. It’s about integrity and you have proven to have none. So feel free to GFY.

                  1. My, my, you conservatives really relish making juvenile insults. Duly noted that no links to indisputable evidence of massive voter fraud will be forthcoming from big Olly.

                2. Why don’t you want to try the evidence before God and a jury?

                  You are mortified by the evidence.

                  You criminally deny Trump a fair trial after an unfair, corrupt and tampered-with “fake” election.

              1. If that were true, it would prove to be the wisest thing you could do. Of course your ignorant Navy statements prove foolishness runs deep in you. 😁

      3. Shouldn’t they defend the right for their votes to count then? Because that’s what Hawley et al are challenging. On the surface it seems they’re just challenging the votes they didn’t like, but there is no such thing as spot reduction as the saying goes.

        Bottom line: your 70 million is still less than 77 million. And they don’t erase the fact trump has never won the popular vote.

        Elvis Bug

    3. Race, that’s a pathetic attempt at diversion.

      Since you are claiming there was no election fraud, you should welcome any and all inquiry.

      So, if there is nothing nefarious to hide, what are you afraid of?

Leave a Reply