Below is my column in the Hill on the ongoing federal grand jury investigation reportedly looking into January 6th and potential criminal charges against former president Donald Trump. If there is an indictment, it cannot be based on a Vizzini charge that it is simply “inconceivable” that anyone would believe that there was widespread election fraud. Notably, a new Harvard study has found that most people who went to the Capitol on January 6th did so in loyalty to Trump rather than to engage in insurrection. Millions continue to believe that the election was stolen. However, any case would likely be tried in Washington, D.C., which constitutes arguably the worst possible jury pool politically for the former president.
Here is the column:
This week, CNN received a 282-page letter from former President Trump. The “Notice of Intent” to sue includes dozens of past transcripts and online stories of unrelentingly anti-Trump coverage on the network. However, there is one line that stood out; it stated that Trump “subjectively believes that the results of the 2020 presidential election turned on fraudulent voting activity in several key states.”
The line does not make a case for civil defamation — but it could offer a criminal defense if Attorney General Merrick Garland charges Trump as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation.
As a defamation lawsuit, the length of the exhibits does little to make up for the limited case law supporting Trump’s claim. Trump faces a difficult constitutional standard applied to public officials and public figures. Under that “actual malice standard,” he must show that CNN had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
Trump has long objected to that standard and called for it to be changed to allow greater liability for the media. Ironically, liberals such as Harvard professor Cass Sunstein also have called for the broader use of defamation to combat “fake news.” However, courts have not accepted such invitations. The standard is designed to make defamation actions more difficult, to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
CNN’s reporting in some stories that Trump lied about election fraud was clearly protected opinion. In other reports, it was based on the views of experts or sources. In either case, a defamation case cannot be maintained on the “I believed it to be true” claim. The question is whether CNN knew it to be false or didn’t care if it was false or true.
That claim, however, could have greater success in a criminal prosecution.
Some of us continue to question the basis for criminal charges against Trump on the current evidence. The House Jan. 6 committee promised to present compelling evidence to support criminal charges, but it has not yet presented that case after eight hearings. Even some Democratic figures, including former prosecutor and former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), do not believe a strong case has been made for an indictment.
I have long maintained that current or former presidents should be charged when there is clear evidence of a crime, including the cases of former Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The Justice Department, however, has long adopted a more cautious approach. Although a federal judge declared that Clinton committed perjury, which even some of his supporters admitted, he was not charged. There has been a recognition that such a prosecution — even a clear case like Clinton’s — could divide the nation at a time when it needs to move forward.
I have always disagreed with that view, believing that if a president commits a crime, prosecution strengthens the nation by showing its commitment to the rule of law.
However, that is not an invitation for improvisation or impulse. If a former president is going to sit in the dock, the case should be sufficiently strong to refute any question of political motive or influence.
That is not the current case against Trump.
While Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, there has been a notable shift away from that dubious basis for an indictment. Most of the current calls for prosecution focus on conspiring to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)).
Any prosecution will have to overcome significant constitutional headwinds, including free speech protections and the right to protest (and to call for such protests). However, the central problem remains Trump’s state of mind.
Trump maintains he believed the election was stolen and he had a legal basis to challenge its certification. Democrats in Congress (including some members of the Jan. 6 committee) have challenged certifications of prior elections, including Trump’s 2016 victory; past election controversies also involved rival slates of electors being presented to Congress. And Trump had a team of lawyers advising him these were valid claims.
Democrats have tried to undermine such a defense by referring to Trump’s personal lawyers as “Team Crazy” and noting that not only White House counsel but most legal experts disagreed with their analysis. They insist no one would believe these claims were credible. The committee’s case, however, was built without a modicum of balance in the presentation of evidence. Even in quoting Trump’s much-condemned rally speech, the committee routinely edited out his line that “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Some insist Trump’s state of mind can be dismissed as “willful blindness” and that he had to know there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. It is true that willful blindness can be used by prosecutors when they cannot prove actual knowledge, but it remains highly controversial. As one expert noted, “There is tremendous confusion in this area of law and a lurking sense that something is fundamentally awry.”
When an administration prosecutes a former (and possibly future) political opponent, even more can appear “awry.” Even under the alternative showing, “willful” does not include politically delusional or defiant defendants. Millions of Americans still believe there is evidence of election fraud. Moreover, the Jan. 6 committee has portrayed Trump as a raving egomaniac who refused to accept that he could lose to President Biden. Even former Attorney General William Barr said Trump refused to entertain opposing views and added, “I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has, you know, lost contact with, become detached from reality.”
Perhaps, but Trump would not be convicted for losing a grasp on reality. He would argue that he had a host of lawyers around him supporting this view.
True, the odds of convicting Trump on most any crime before a Washington, D.C., jury is very high. In a city that gave Biden more than 92 percent of its vote (and Trump roughly 5 percent), the defense could not face a worse jury pool.
However, that does not mean it would stand up on appeal. In the interim, a weak or creative case for conviction would rip the country apart.
For the administration of his opponent to prosecute him, the case must be more than just plausible. It must be unassailable.
Prosecutors need more than simply repeating that it’s “inconceivable” that Trump didn’t know he’d lost the election. In the film “The Princess Bride,” that was the go-to line for the character Vizzini, who used it to avoid any self-questioning. For many Trump critics, it serves the same purpose.
They maintain that it is “inconceivable” that Trump believed what he said about the election being “stolen” — so what he said must have been criminal.
Yet as another character from the movie told Vizzini, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It means even less in a criminal case against a past or present president. Garland will need more than a Vizzini charge to make a case stick against Trump.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Professor Turley,
You cite to a 1992 essay to make the claim that the willful blindness standard is “controversial.” A 2011 Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Alito, however, clarifies that this is simply not true. From GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. v. SEB S. A. ( No. 10-6 ), 594 F. 3d 1360:
The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell , 532 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).
To prove “willful blindness,” the prosecution must show that the defendant subjectively believed that there was a high probability that the relevant fact was true and that the defendant took deliberate actions to avoid learning that fact.
It is completely reasonable to argue that proving willful blindness is difficult, but it is absolutely wrong to suggest that willful blindness, as a concept, is any way controversial. SCOTUS has long recognized it in criminal law.
The Supreme Court recently corrected the erroneous and high-criminal decision of the Supreme Court in 1973. Roe v Wade.
The Justices therein must not have been supported and adhered to, but impeached and convicted for deliberate abuse of power, usurpation of legislative power and subversion of the Constitution.
Decisions are made of law and fundamental law, not the previous right-or-wrong handiwork of judges-cum-politicians-cum-despots-cum-dictators.
I have no idea what that means. This 2011 case was Alito (the same justice who overturned Roe). Are you saying that you disagree with Alito in Globle-Tech Appliances or that you believe Dobbs has cheapened the value of binding precedent?
“A 2011 Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Alito, however, clarifies that this is simply not true.”
– Aninny
_______
I love it when people agree with me.
That is completely immaterial and irrelevant, as it should be.
Try the case on facts and law.
I don’t understand. Do you agree that “willful blindness” is not “controversial” because a 2011 SCOTUS decision reaffirmed the validity of the doctrine?
If you disagree, can you provide subsequent case law from the Supreme Court, which calls into question the binding status of Alito’s opinion in Global-Tech?
“The doctrine of willful blindness” of a *crime*. It is not (yet) a crime to hold the opinion that an election is invalid.
Willful blindness pertains to the state of mind (aka “mens rea” or “guilty mind”) of the defendant. It is one element in proving that a crime occurred (along with actus reus, the “guilty act”). It is not the “crime” itself.
The classic example is this: When a defendant receives trash bags and plastic storage bins full of assorted loose goods at prices well below wholesale on an almost daily basis, a jury can convict on finding him to have thought it highly likely that the goods were stolen, even if the jury decides he lacked actual knowledge. Willful blindness is the defendant’s failure to inquire about the source of the goods.
It is not a “crime” to fail to look into the source of the stolen goods, just like it is not a “crime” to hold an opinion that an election is invalid. But a finding of willful blindness is certainly possible to satisfy the mens rea of charges against Trump, given the information that Trump, as President, had at his disposal.
Of course, a prosecutor would rather prove actual knowledge, and it is certainly fine to opine about the likelihood of the prosecution succeeding with a willful blindness strategy. However, commenting on the success of a strategy is different from claiming that the strategy is legally dubious. The whole point of this post was to challenge the clearly inaccurate statement by Professor Turley that the doctrine of willful blindness is in any way “highly controversial.” From the responses, it seems like folks don’t really care about that.
“The whole point of this post was to challenge the clearly inaccurate statement by Professor Turley…”
Being anonymous, this guy is always looking to boost his ego. With an understanding that is short of a full deck, he is now trying to prove that Professor Turley isn’t as intelligent as most like to believe.
Willful blindness has justification in principle, but in court, it becomes problematic when dealing with individual cases.
Being “well established” does not mean it is not controversial since willful blindness leads to difficulty in implementing the concept when there is such a variety of circumstances.
A difficult implementation of cases causes the doctrine to be controversial. I don’t know exactly what Professor Turley said or its context, but I do know the type of person I am talking to who is untrustworthy, not credible, and has ego problems to the extent that he cannot climb the ladder. Therefore attempts to pull those ahead of him down.
Turley writes:
“Some insist Trump’s state of mind can be dismissed as “willful blindness” and that he had to know there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. It is true that willful blindness can be used by prosecutors when they cannot prove actual knowledge, but it remains highly controversial. As one expert noted, “There is tremendous confusion in this area of law and a lurking sense that something is fundamentally awry.”
Did you click on the link provided? It is an essay from the early ’90s. It is 2022. His support for the claim that it is controversial has to come from a footnote from the early ’90s, when SCOTUS has affirmed the doctrine in 2011. There is nothing “fundamentally awry” in 2022 about the doctrine of willful blindness.
If Turley simply said willful blindness is a well-regarded doctrine that can be difficult to prove, then I would have no issue with his take. But, he casts doubt as to its legal justification by citing some 30-year old footnote.
Willful blindness is like the insanity defense: it is hard to prove. Does that make the insanity defense is “controversial”? Absolutely not. A legal argument is not “controversial” simply because it is difficult to implement.
Why revert to personal attacks?
“Why revert to personal attacks?”
What you are doing is agreeing with my take on willful blindness. At the same time, you are trying to elevate your anonymous posture by trying to pull another down. The word controversy doesn’t tell one much about the context where the word is used. You have asked if I saw the link. I still don’t see the link, and I am not ready to search it out as there is no need to. My comment stands as it is.
Even if you can prove that a person transacted goods that they beleived were stolen.
There is no crime – unless the goods were actually stolen.
Crimes have elements – all must be met or there is no crime.
You can not illegally conspire to act legally.
While it is duboius to beleive that Trump was lying, even if true. he is still entitled to try to win anyway by getting congress to reject some states slates of electors.
We may not like that. We might consider it immoral. But it is not illegal. It has happened before, and people attempt it in every election.
The problem with these stupid claims regarding Trump is not that they are missing mens rea, it is that they are missing EVERY element of any possible crime.
Because there is no crime here.
John, Anonymous was going after two people, Turley and Trump. I took on his claim against Turley first. Thank you for making so I didn’t have to take on his claim against Trump.
He has severe tunnel vision.
I have no issue with your take on willful blindness. As I understand it, you agree it is a legitimate route to establishing mens rea. But if you think your take accords with Turley’s, then you must be willfully blind.
There is nothing legally controversial about the doctrine. Yet, Turley quotes to an outdated expert to make this argument, rather than acknowledging that SCOTUS has recognized its validity.
And by the way, this has nothing to do with Trump because I am not opining as to its application, only to its status as a …. NOT controversial legal doctrine.
This is an argument as to the legality of the doctrine, not to its application with respect to Trump.
What you perceive as “tunnel vision” is simply a narrow point about a law professor’s legal error. Not everything has to be a political stance about Trump.
” But if you think your take accords with Turley’s, then you must be willfully blind.”
I can only speak to what I know about you and how you act. What Turley said irking you so much is unknown to me, but presently you are adding legally to the word controversial. Legally controversial is your newest revision to what you previously stated and has been added, further defining what Turley might or might not have said. Those words were not included in your initial attempt to tear down Professor Turley. Did he use the term legally controversial or just controversial, as you described in your first sentence of the discussion?
You are not to be trusted. Legally controversial is different than controversial, consistent with your actions that often take things out of context when you try to tear one down or prove your point.
“What you perceive as “tunnel vision”
What I perceive as YOUR tunnel vision is entirely accurate, as are the rest of my characterizations.
Anonymous, recognize that being anonymous doesn’t change the fact that you are entirely transparent.
Turley’s quote: “[I]t remains highly controversial. As one expert noted, “There is tremendous confusion in this area of law and a lurking sense that something is fundamentally awry.”
He supports his statement that it is “highly controversial” with an expert quote, stating that there is confusion in this AREA OF LAW.
Do you still think I am projecting by interpreting Turley’s position as “the area of law of willful blindness is legally controversial”? Why else support his statement with that quote from 1992?
If you are going to try to mince my words, at least read Turley’s article first.
“If you are going to try to mince my words, at least read Turley’s article first.”
You prove my case better than anything else. You just quoted Turley where the word legally doesn’t exist. However, that doesn’t stop you. Immediately a new claim arises, highly controversial. Controversial or highly controversial doesn’t change my opinion nor should it change anyone else’s.
You then link controversy to confusion as if:
Controversy + confusion = legally controversial (in the context of our discussion)
Your addition stinks.
That is exactly the inference he is making. Go to the source of the quote: Charlow’s “Wilful Ignorance and Criminal Culpability: https://www.judicialmisconduct.us/drupal/sites/default/files/2019-09/WilfulIgnorance.pdf
The very next sentence of the quote is…
“There is tremendous confusion in this area of law and a lurking sense that something is fundamentally awry. Wilful ignorance is employed in criminal law primarily, and most CONTROVERSIALLY, as a mental state that satisfies a required mens rea of knowledge.”
AGAIN, this was back in 1992 when this author deemed it controversial. Turley used the exact same word: CONTROVERSIAL as the opinion of the expert in the very next sentence of his quote. And he did so without acknowledging how SCOTUS has reaffirmed the doctrine in 2011.
So, yes, I think my inference here is correct. Justified by the source of the quote. You can find it on page 1353. Please go to the source before responding. Otherwise, this conversation must end.
You can dance as much as you want, but you still got to put your long pants on and be a man. Your attempt to tear down a real one is not realized. Turley quoted another, but you are playing a game of dice and splice. No one can keep up with you as you travel from controversial to legally controversial to highly controversial, etc., and now to a long article that discusses some of the problems associated with willful blindness existing today.
It’s pitiful to watch, as you jump from one rabbit hole to another.
I have no problems exploring what constitutes criminal intention.
But that is not the consequential issue that we are constantly being confronted with today.
We are constantly bombarded with idiotic claims that rest on the premise that highly biased guesses at the intentions of political enemies are sufficient to convert legal acts into crime.
Criminal intent is a requirement for most crimes.
But intent is the LAST element we should be looking at in any criminal allegation.
The first and most critical is whether an act that is a crime occured.
If not we are done.
“[T]he clearly inaccurate statement by Professor Turley . . .”
You are infamous for dropping the context, in order to deceive others — which is what you’re doing here.
The context for “willful blindness” is an underlying *crime* (e.g., drugs, stolen property). It is not (yet) a crime to doubt the validity of an election.
Ask John Dudham about venue.
The American Communist Deep Deep State Swamp “fix” is in – in D.C.
America has been subsumed by the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
America is the diametric opposite of the design and intent of the American Founders and Framers.
“Karl Marx Had a Dream” and America is now suffering a nightmare.
Abraham Lincoln was Karl Marx’s “…earnest of the epoch…” leading America toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
RECONSTRUCTION it was.
JT and allied voices continue to frame the case against Trump as “incitement” on Jan 6th, a case that would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The effect is to draw attention away from Trump, Giuliani and Eastman’s plot to interfere with the EC Vote Count in order to throw the election to the House, where Trump would be a sure thing to win 26-24.
Trump publicly admits to the key elements of this plot in his Ellipse Speech, and tags his co-defendants as “genius” and “hard fighters”. There’s enough self-incrimination in the speech to win a conviction for Conspiracy to Impede an Official Proceeding of Congress. The icing on the cake would be Pence or Marc Short’s testimony about the plot and the arm-twisting to derail the EC Vote Count.
That would be an easy indictment and conviction., and just because it singles out the great affront to the Constitution — gaming the EC Vote Certifiation to overturn the election result. The violence at the Capitol was the doing of other parties.
Exactly constitutional. Thanks for the airtight defense of President Trump.
Their are protections built into the election process. They eventually always end up with the people making the decision.
You must be reading a fantasy version of the Constitution. It has no provision for Congress or the VP to reject EC votes.
Congress challenges from states all the time, then a vote of the whole body is taken. The majority would not recognize those electors, it could throw the selection of the President to the the House. The candidate getting the most states would be President.
The system is in place.
AMERICA SKEWED
“I have always disagreed with that view, believing that if a president commits a crime, prosecution strengthens the nation by showing its commitment to the rule of law.”
– Professor Turley
______________
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln woulda/shoulda been ripped out of office and thrown in prison for life, or worse. Wait. Looks like old Abe deservedly got worse.
America endures Lincoln’s illegitimate, national, criminal consequences to this day.
Talk about election fraud, 4 million illegal alien voters were not compassionately repatriated, of high criminal dereliction, per extant immigration law in 1863; they vote to this day, as an antithetical “block.”
Every American election commences under that election fraud and vote tampering.
Did you just say “…commitment to the rule of law?”
The law that ruled America was the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Naturalization Act of 1802, all of which were shredded, ripped up and destroyed in 1860/63 (slavery must have been eliminated legally).
Let’s talk ethics, honor, consistency, veracity and sworn oaths to support the Constitution.
Insidious bunkum!
______________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”
– Sir Walter Scott
______________
Oh, what a tangled web “Crazy Abe” wove when first he practiced to violate the American thesis and fundamental law by nullifying and abrogating the Constitution.
The weaving persists.
_________________
“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in [America] anymore.”
– Dorothy Gale, The Wizard of Oz
Slavery was well on its way to becoming an economic loser for the Southern landowners, as the cost of providing food, housing and health care to slaves was growing unsustainable. Landowners in South America had already accepted that coming farm mechanization would destroy the economics of slave labor, and phased it out. The southern US plantation owners painted themselves in a corner economically by having built an inflexible culture of white supremacy they held paramount to free-market economic rationalism.
It’s likely that the economics would have prevailed over these landowners to free their slaves (and thus cut their losses as farm machinery came in), but in deciding to secede and take up warfare to protect their “way of life”, this economic reconciliation was able to be postponed briefly. Lincoln and the Union effectively restored economic rationalism to the South.
…by violating fundamental law.
Typically that is referenced as “crime.”
Lincoln was a high criminal well beyond the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.
To wit,
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
True, if “economic rationalism” means forcing the south to pay for the north’s industrialization via tariffs. Lincoln turned this Republic on its head and Yankees like you are so idiotic to think there was some moral rationale.
Tere wasn’t.
Lincoln (and the Yankee north) needed to force it by invading and killing as many people as possible.
No morality needed at all, so get away with the BS.
A big reason there is such disagreement among so many of us over the resuls of the last election surrounds the numerous changes made in a number of states in the methods for voting which were done immediately before the electtion. A number of these changes were accomplished without complying with applicable law. Some of the changes were intended to help one party or the other to gain an advantage in the election. In California, new methods allowed voting by dropping off a ballot at some remote unsupervisied cardboard box in front of a public ibrary or by doing away with local precints with neighborhood residents working the polling location in favor of one large location. The new methods were not an improvement, but instead reduced oversight and supervision of voting. The move to make voting “easier” increases the odds of voter fraud. We need a verifiable and in person system for voting that guarantees to all of us “peace of mind” and “confidence” that the voting is legitimate – every vote being counted and every voter being checked. The use of computers may be one of the reason some don’t trust the results of the last election. For those who think using computers is great, just reflect for a moment on how many companies and individuals have had their computer systems “hacked”. How many private and public entities have been hacked and then their computer information compromised unless they pay a ransom? Can any reasonable person have full confidence in a computer system to record all votes fairly and accurately when no one is completely safe from possible hacking by talented computer experts? Our country needs to return to verifiable voting when voters have to appear in person to vote, subject to reasonable exceptions for absentee balloting and age/medical exceptions but only under strict limited circumstances. It appears that Biden won the last election, however no one can honestly claim that there was absolutely no election fraud in the last election. I recognize the lawsuits challenging some state election results were dismissed, but it has not dulled the impression by many that it was in no way perfect, honest and trustworthy. If one takes a quick look at Wikipedia, it discusses a bunch of elections where the winner of an election won by only one, two or three or more votes. If even one voter voted fraudulently, it may change an election result. Every vote counts and we need a system that better ensures all valid votes are counted.
The election was not stolen, of course, not.
4 million illegal aliens entered in 1863 and were allowed to vote.
The past 50 years have seen 50+ million illegal aliens enter and receive the vote.
2 million illegal aliens enter annually now.
Ballot harvesting is rampant.
Turnout in 1788 was 11.6%; vote-restricting criteria were male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
The Constitution requires a “time,” “place” and “manner” (paper, manual, mechanical, electrical – ballotas, or little balls, were used early on).
Vote-by-mail takes days and is not a “time.”
The election was not stolen, of course, not.
__________________________________
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
BTW:
Just under what specific piece of legislation is the US Congress considering & being used as a pretext to continue to hold J6 hearings!
Oh I remember, were in their Complete Lawlessness.
“Millions of Americans still believe there is evidence of election fraud.” And they will continue to do so. To date, every court has refused to adjudicate the concerns of Americans who believe there was enough fraud – it never has to be “widespread” if only a handful of strategic counties participate – to change the outcome of ANY election. Many were flabbergasted the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas’s and 19 or 20 other states concerns that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia all changed their voting ‘rules’ outside their own legislative processes…the same states that appear now to have the largest number of questionable votes in favor of only one candidate. One county? Maybe. But five counties/states all having the same tallying error at the same time in the middle of the same night changing results in favor of the the same candidate? A far less likely ‘coincidence’. The courts should have then, and should still be now, far more interesting in keeping elections transparent and above-board for everyone’s peace of mind. Refusal to hold hearings, the refusal of the Congress to allow anyone to question the results, is not in itself proof the election results were on the up and up.
I think we have bigger problems in unrestrained infowarfare (of a deceptive nature) in the lead-up to elections. The voters only know what they are exposed to. It’s becoming a near certainty, with journalists arrogating to themselves to opinion-shape the electorate while hiding behind the veneer of news-gatherers, that election results will not be judged “free and fair” — even with the most transparent and un-corruptable balloting and vote-counting mechanics.
Just as an example, I found out that my home state (CA) has law prohibiting the use of deep-fake video for political advantage in the run-up to elections. We need a much higher-standard than that. But it could start with the big news orgs (NBC, CBS, ABC, FNC, CNN, MSNBC) establishing their own high standard of news neutrality in the run-up to elections, not just for show, but with execs and producers held accountable for news neutrality.
If Pelosi stops off in Taiwan, prepare for China to give you an early start on the Big Derecho wind of “Reset”. This would just be an earlier start on the coming reset. Selah
Who is in charge?
Is it Pelosi setting foreign policy? Is she setting up the stage for a 25A removal and her insertion as prez?
Is the Biden admin even in the loop?
Where are the norms we were promised that would return with this admin?
Do not buy stock in companies that are not audited and do not take stock in elections that have not been audited.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/el-paso-county-update-colorado-politicians-forced-pay-10000-vendor-programming-20000-total-recount/
******
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/update-withheld-records-reveal-19000-mail-ballots-illegally-received-deadline-maricopa-county-2020-election/
BREAKING: El Paso Colorado Team to File Lawsuit at 8AM in El Paso County, Colorado – Calling on Sheriff to Act – Detain Voting Machines for Forensic Audit
By Joe Hoft
Published July 30, 2022 at 8:45am
324 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-8am-court-case-el-paso-county-colorado-corrupt-secretary-state-griswold-trying-prevent-citizens-auditing-recounting-recent-primary-results/
********
I never would have thought that the US Postal Service would turn Evil!!!
***********
Biden Creating Permanent U.S. Postal Service Division to Deliver and Return Ballots in US Elections
By Joe Hoft
Published July 30, 2022 at 7:45am
464 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/biden-creating-permanent-u-s-postal-service-division-deliver-return-ballots-us-elections/
EXCLUSIVE: After Months of Doing Nothing, Wisconsin’s Senate Majority Leader LeMahieu Now Pretends to Care About Election Integrity
By Joe Hoft
Published July 29, 2022 at 3:05pm
144 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/exclusive-months-nothing-wisconsins-senate-majority-leader-lemahieu-now-pretends-care-election-integrity/
*********
Steve Bannon with Sebastian Gorka: Joe Biden Will Be Impeached and the 2020 Election Results in Wisconsin and Arizona Will Be Decertified
By Joe Hoft
Published July 29, 2022 at 7:30am
456 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/steve-bannon-shares-sebastian-gorka-biden-will-impeached-2020-election-results-wisconsin-arizona-will-decertified/
BREAKING: Dominion Voting Machines FAIL Testing for Colorado Secretary of State Recount — Major Discrepancy Reported with Logic and Accuracy Testing
By Brian Lupo
Published July 29, 2022 at 8:54pm
770 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-dominion-voting-machiens-fail-el-paso-co-co-logic-accuracy-test-hand-recount/
********
Woman Calls For Campaign To ‘Normalize Spitting Into The Drinks Of Trump Supporters’
By Alicia Powe
Published July 29, 2022 at 7:30pm
1222 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/woman-calls-campaign-normalize-spitting-drinks-trump-supporters/
EXCLUSIVE: Evidence Uncovered that Election County Clerk in New Mexico Falsified Pre-Election Machine Certification Records
By Joe Hoft
Published July 28, 2022 at 9:00pm
409 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/exclusive-evidence-uncovered-election-county-clerk-new-mexico-falsified-pre-election-machine-certification-records/
******
Twitter Admits to Increased Demand by Federal Government for Information on Journalists and News Outlets — US Government Tops the List
By Assistant Editor
Published July 28, 2022 at 8:02pm
110 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/twitter-reports-massive-increase-government-demands-information-journalists-news-outlets/
Wisconsin “ballot harvester” Investigator Harry Waite and WI candidate Adam Steen to join The Banned Reunion podcast tonight!
By Brian Lupo
Published July 28, 2022 at 6:00pm
28 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/wisconsin-ballot-harvester-harry-waite-join-banned-reunion-podcast-tonight/
**********
Arizona Patriots Hold Drop Box Tailgate Parties to Protect Free and Fair Elections
By Joe Hoft
Published August 1, 2022 at 12:15pm
129 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/americans-drop-box-tailgate-parties-protect-free-fair-elections-fun/
Capt Kirk to Scotty:
We have to have more power from the engines.
We can’t seem to shake free of the damn Klingon hang off our Azz.
*******
Inconceivable ? BS
Ok, I’ll post a list of just the Election Frauds Reports on GP I see today:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/exclusive-evidence-election-irregularities-potential-fraud-mechanisms-virginia-presented-top-state-officials/
******
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/exclusive-evidence-election-irregularities-potential-fraud-mechanisms-virginia-presented-top-state-officials/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/exclusive-evidence-election-irregularities-potential-fraud-mechanisms-virginia-presented-top-state-officials/
********
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/colorado-secretary-state-brags-increasing-ballot-drop-boxes-65-state-knowing-major-means-ballot-trafficking-video/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/golf-fans-chant-four-years-president-donald-trump-joins-players-liv-tourney-bedminster-video/
***********
As If! https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/watch-maria-bartiromo-go-off-asked-white-house-blaming-gop-open-borders-disaster-video/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/breaking-8am-court-case-el-paso-county-colorado-corrupt-secretary-state-griswold-trying-prevent-citizens-auditing-recounting-recent-primary-results/
*****
Arizona IT and Elections Expert: Elections Assistance Commission Was Aware That Machines Could Be Hacked in Minutes
By Brian Lupo
Published July 31, 2022 at 3:25pm
173 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/elections-assistance-commission-aware-machines-hacked-minutes/
Wisconsin “ballot harvester” Investigator Harry Waite and WI candidate Adam Steen to join The Banned Reunion podcast tonight!
By Brian Lupo
Published July 28, 2022 at 6:00pm
28 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/wisconsin-ballot-harvester-harry-waite-join-banned-reunion-podcast-tonight/
**********
Arizona Patriots Hold Drop Box Tailgate Parties to Protect Free and Fair Elections
By Joe Hoft
Published August 1, 2022 at 12:15pm
129 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/americans-drop-box-tailgate-parties-protect-free-fair-elections-fun/
I’ve posted enough about/round 11/3/2020 election was Riddled with Election Fraud. That Bill Barr was full of Sh*t!. When it comes to US Election Fraud no one could walk through the lobbies of CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, NYT, FBI, DOJ without getting human crap on their shoes as it’s so deep with falsehoods told to the public.
*******
FOX News Shuns Trump from Network for 100 Days and Counting — Elites Hope to Eliminate President as Major Player
By Jim Hoft
Published August 1, 2022 at 12:00pm
266 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/hate-fox-news-bans-trump-air-waves-100-days-counting-elites-hope-eliminate-president-major-player/
*******
Aerospace Engineer and Former State Senator Patrick Colbeck Releases a Must-Read: “The 2020 Coup, What Happened. What We Must Do”
By Jim Hoft
Published July 29, 2022 at 10:18am
318 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/aerospace-engineer-former-state-senator-patrick-colbeck-releases-must-read-2020-coup-happened-must/
Seriously? You just took up two pages.
Something is blocking my post, let us see:
***********
How far back in time do I need to go? That was just one website back 2 or 3 days.
Most of “People” don’t to see/hear a damn thing.
But maybe Team America can win by attrition?
Leading Doctors I heard said the mRNA Gene Therapies could harm or k*ill them about 3 years ago.
Many didn’t pay attention & well:
Gee, what are the odds?
*******
July 30, 2022
Print This Post Print This Post
6 Canadian Medical Doctors Died Within 2 Weeks After 4th COVID Booster Shots for Employees Started at One Hospital
https://vaccineimpact.com/2022/6-canadian-medical-doctors-died-within-2-weeks-after-4th-covid-booster-shots-for-employees-started-at-one-hospital/
George, something is blocking my post. Lets see?
********
How far back in time do I need to go? That was just one website back 2 or 3 days.
Most of “People” don’t to see/hear a damn thing.
But maybe Team America can win by attrition?
Leading Doctors I heard said the mRNA Gene Therapies could harm or k*ill them about 3 years ago.
Many didn’t pay attention & well:
Gee, what are the odds?
*******
OK next:
*********
July 30, 2022
Print This Post Print This Post
6 Canadian Medical Doctors D*ed Within 2 Weeks After 4th CO***VID Boo*ster Shots for Employees Started at One Hospital
https://vaccineimpact (dot)com/2022/6-canadian-medical-doctors-d*ed-within-2-weeks-after-4th-cov*id-boo*ster-shots-for-employees-started-at-one-hospital/
*********
Next:
************
The FD*A had to replace their Board 4 TIMES to get one to approve mRNA D*eath Jabs down to 6 months olds & up! Godless Aholes!!!
********
Healthcare Workers Win $10 Million Settlement After Suing Over CO*VID Vax Mandate
By ProTr*humpNews Staff
Published July 30, 2022 at 10:40am
234 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/healthcare-workers-win-10m-settlement-suing-co*vid-vax-mandate/
What is a “KrautWOP”?
Probably a Comosexual.
BUT in order to assert this affirmative defense,Trump will have to testify as to what was in his head and on what he based his (“inconceiable”) belief. Can Trump stand up to a vigorous cross-examination? That surely will be a delightful job for any competent prosecutor. I do not see Trump testifying and opening himself up to cross-examination. He knows he would be revealed to the country as a buffoon.
He was “cross-examined” almost daily by a supremely antagonistic press (something his addled successor refuses to do even a little bit) and came out quite well. When he would start reciting the dozens of glaring examples of fraud in unlawful voting rule changes, voting itself and counting of the votes, it will be compelling that he could and did, like vast numbers of us today, believe the election was stolen.
BTW, a very good case could be made for change of venue from Washington D.C.
OT
Nancy Pelosi panics, struggles to suture a pair on and take back her blink.
Biden says military does not support Taiwan visit (can woke U.S. navy save Pelosi?).
Will Xi “Macho Man” Jinping back down to Mrs. Pelosi?
U.S. Foreign policy: Hysterical and Incoherent.
God Bless America.
“[I]it’s ‘inconceivable’ that Trump didn’t know he’d lost the election.”
In their emotionalist world view, what’s “conceivable” and “inconceivable” is determined by their feelings.
They wish for there to be no credible claims of election fraud. And they feel that Trump’s a political “criminal.” So there aren’t. And he is.
Jonathan: This column pretty much proves that if Trump were to step outside on the street in front of Trump Tower and shoot dead a passing pedestrian you would somehow come up with an argument for “self defense”. That said the chances of Trump prevailing in his defamation suit against CNN is next to nothing. Trump also sued the Washington Post and NY Times for defamation but failed there for the same reasons. But I suppose the reason why Trump’s lawyers inserted the “subjectivity” part in their complaint against CNN is to use that later in any DOJ prosecution.
I don’t think the “subjectivity” defense stands up to close scrutiny. If Trump really believed there was massive election fraud why did he call the Georgia elections officials and for over an hour tried to get them to switch over 11,000 Biden votes to Trump? Trump knew the election was not “stolen”. He lost over 60 lawsuits challenging the election results. He was also told so by his campaign advisors, by WH Counsel, by Bill Barr–just about everyone in his orbit, including his family. And what evidence could Trump offer that justified he “subjective” belief? He relied on “Team Crazy” consisting of Giuliani, conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell, convicted liar Michael Flynn and John Eastman who is now facing disbarment in California. When Pat Cippolone confronted the crazies in the Oval Office during that infamous meeting on 12/18 he asked them “What evidence do you have of election fraud?” there was a long silence and then the meeting almost ended in a fist fight. Trump knew there was no evidence of election fraud. No one in “Team Crazy” could offer any. That’s when Trump decided to move on to Plan B and the next day called on his supporters to converge on the Capitol on Jan. 6 with the cry: “Be there, will be wild!”.
As to the J6 hearings you say “some of us ” believe the hearings have yet to produce any evidence of crimes by Trump. Besides Heidi Heitkamp who do you have? Any former prosecutor or constitutional expert? If you did you would be citing them extensively. The consensus so far among the experts is that Trump can be charged. One of your arguments against prosecution is that the evidence so far is “built without a modicum of balance in the presentation of evidence”. That false flag ship sailed long ago. The J.6 Committee is not a prosecutorial body. It’s more like a grand jury. It presents its evidence to the DOJ for possible prosecution. If the DOJ charges Trump he will have ample opportunity to present countervailing evidence and opportunities for cross examination. Your only other defense is that (1) “Millions of Americans still believe there is evidence of election fraud, and (2) “he [Trump] had a host of lawyers around him supporting his views”. Three crazy lawyers plus a convicted liar! Hardly a “host” of lawyers. The argument that millions still believe the “big lie” would be laughed out of court! And you can’t argue in court that “my lawyers told me to do it”.
If Trump is eventually charged, and that’s a big if, you can bet neither Rudy Giuliani, crazy Sidney Powell nor John Eastman will be on his defense team. Maye you should offer your services to defend Trump since you seem to be one of the few who has offered any possible defenses against prosecution. You and Alan Dershowitz. Now that would be a defense team made in heaven!
The Wisconsin Supreme Court for just one for starters disagrees with you.
Trump’s fundimental problem in a defamation suit is that he is a public figure and must prove malice.
Trump uniquely probably can do so, but the courts and juries are not going to bite.
He must prove intent as well. His defamation case is just a waste of time.
If you prove malice you have proven intent.
There is probably no one on earth it would be easier to prove malice towards.
Except to a left wing jury which will be unable to separate their own malice from that of the media.
Defamation claims by public figures are hard.
Trump would have no problem winning with a Texas Jury.
Trump will have to prove actual malice. That is the standard for public officials.
“ The Sullivan court stated that “actual malice” means that the defendant said the defamatory statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Sullivan court also held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by “clear and convincing” evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard. On this point, the precise language the Sullivan court uses is that the plaintiff must show “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.”
CNN and the left leaning media did not make false statements. Trump will hand to prove that voter fraud claims were not false. That will be a problem since Trump has no evidence that his voter fraud claims were indeed true. Even a Texas jury will need actual proof of Trump’s assertions. He will need to provide clear and convincing evidence. Not just assertions.
Ypur legal analysis is correct.
The rest is garbage.
“CNN and the left leaning media did not make false statements.”
Of course they did.
“Trump will hand to prove that voter fraud claims were not false.”
There is more to this than that,
Regardless, that will be easy.
Further it would be suicide for the left to allow that to go forward.
Give Trump discovery powers with respect to election fraud and the left is in deep shit.
“That will be a problem since Trump has no evidence that his voter fraud claims were indeed true.”
Only for the blind.
“Even a Texas jury will need actual proof of Trump’s assertions.”
The majority of the country beleive that 2020 was a dirty election. Even significant numbers of democrats.
” He will need to provide clear and convincing evidence. Not just assertions.”
Like video of the same person stuffing a half dozen ballots into a ballot box, driving to the next one and repeating ?
Or video of people saying they are destroying the evidence of election fraud ?
Or video of Trucks showing up at counting centers with litterally tons of ballots at 3:30am 8 hours after voting was closed and new ballots could not be accepted. Trucks that are not on any official records, but have official election commission sings on their sides. Truckloads of ballots that have no election official on them, no observers and no signoffs, transmittals or any records – except the video of probably over 100,000 ballots being unloaded – with no chain of custody.
Video of people saying they were paid to deliver ballots to drop boxes.
Video of the same person signing multiple ballots before depositing them in ballot boxes.
I can go on.
What the majority believe is irrelevant. Trump will have to provide actual clear convincing evidence in order for his case to be successful. In all the other court cases alleging voter fraud none had evidence to present besides affidavits based on hearsay. Other cases were dismissed because of lack of standing. If trump had clear and convincing evidence this issue would have been resolved a long time ago.
The video you refer to has already been refuted as false. What the video shows is actually standard practice.
“ The video showed regular ballot containers on wheels — not suitcases — and both a state investigator and an independent monitor observed counting until it was done for the night, finding no evidence of improper ballots, state and county officials said on Friday.”
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-georgia-media-social-media-e9a73462e39e7aa39683f0f582a6659e
It seems that most of the evidence you present is based on the documentary 2000 Mules. That film is not clear and convincing evidence since most of the claims are either allegations or claims made on hearsay. This isn’t good enough to pass the test of clear and convincing standard.
What is widely believed is relevant to claims that belief is abnormal.
What is widely beleived is relevant to whether government conducted a trustworthy election. If significant numbers do nottrust it then govermment failed.
What is widely beleived is relevant to whether that belief reflect bad intentions.
“Trump will have to provide actual clear convincing evidence in order for his case to be successful.”
Correct – and not that difficult.
“In all the other court cases alleging voter fraud none had evidence to present besides affidavits based on hearsay. ”
Massive misrepresentation.
First none of the courts you referenced allowed evidence to be presented – that is what hearings are for, and no actual hearings were conducted except by state legislatures.
Next, most of the affadavits are not hearsay. “I saw …..” – is not hearsay.
Next, hearsay is sometimes admissible.
Next, The core of the case will not be whether Election Fraud occured.
CNN etc did not defame Trump by claiming there was no election fraud.
They defamed Trump by saying “Trump is lying” rather than “Trump is wrong.”
I have pointed that out here repeatedly. A lie is not an error, a lie is a deliberately false statement.
It is always extremely dangerous to claim someone else lied – the burden of proof is on you, and you have to prove not only that their remarks were false – but that the KNEW they were false.
In the Sussman case, Durham had texts and emails from Sussman documenting that Sussman was telling others something different from what he was telling the FBI.
Do you have texts or Emails from Trump where he says “I know i lost the election” ?
I am not precisely sure how courts deal with statements like “X is lying” in a defamation case.
I expect that the legal standard is Trump must prove that CNN said “Trump is lying” – that will be trivial to prove.
Trump must prove CNN acted with malice – that is not going to be difficult to prove.
But the burden will be on CNN to prove that Trump was actually lying – not that he was wrong.
And that is going to be a very hard defense to make.
Calling someone a liar is fascially defamatory – meaning that the plantif only needs to prove the statement was made.
In the US Truth is a defence to defamation – the burden is NOT on the plantif to prove the defamatory statement was False.
That is on the defendant.
“Other cases were dismissed because of lack of standing.”
None of the cases reached a point at which evidence was admitted, examined, and cross examined.
This was a massive failure and undermines our trust in government.
“If trump had clear and convincing evidence this issue would have been resolved a long time ago.”
Whether you like it or not the 200 Mules evidence reaches the much higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard – that election fraud occured.
“Who benefited” is only proven to clear and convincing, Who perpitrated it is proven to a reasonable suspicion level.
Further everything that has not been proven to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard – would easily be with moderate inquiry.
What is widely believed is completely irrelevant in court. Only clear and convincing evidence is what matters
“ Massive misrepresentation.
First none of the courts you referenced allowed evidence to be presented – that is what hearings are for, and no actual hearings were conducted except by state legislatures.
Next, most of the affadavits are not hearsay. “I saw …..” – is not hearsay.
Next, hearsay is sometimes admissible.”
No, courts held preliminary hearings on those cases when the judges asked what evidence the plaintiffs have the majority of the lawyers couldn’t produce evidence of the claims. That’s when the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence. A court can’t “deny” evidence that does not exist. That’s how we know they didn’t provide evidence, because those cases never got past the preliminary hearings once the plaintiffs could not produce evidence.
A small minority of affidavits where not hearsay, however those were dismissed due to lack of standing. Those who allegedly said they “saw” issues had to prove they were directly harmed by the actions observed. They had to be directly affected. Those affidavits were from poll observers who had no way fo prove that way they allegedly saw caused them harm in the legal sense.
“ I have pointed that out here repeatedly. A lie is not an error, a lie is a deliberately false statement.
It is always extremely dangerous to claim someone else lied – the burden of proof is on you, and you have to prove not only that their remarks were false – but that the KNEW they were false.”
Trump did lie. That’s the problem Trump had to overcome. He can’t prove with clear and convincing evidence that his claims were true. CNN can prove Trump’s claims were indeed false and they were reporting exactly what the results of those claims fact checked by independent organizations to be false.
The burden of proof is on Trump not CNN. Trump is the one suing for defamation.
“ Other cases were dismissed because of lack of standing.”
None of the cases reached a point at which evidence was admitted, examined, and cross examined.”
That’s because there was no evidence to examine or cross examine. That was the biggest problem for Trump campaign lawyers. They didn’t have anything credible to back up the claims of voter fraud.
To date all of Trump’s claims have been refuted or debunked repeatedly. That’s why it won’t be “easy” for him to prove his case.
“ Whether you like it or not the 200 Mules evidence reaches the much higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard – that election fraud occured.”
But that’s not the standard which matters here. It’s the clear and convincing standard that is needed for Trump to be successful. 2000 Mules doesn’t meet that standard under strict scrutiny.
The truth of the matter is still the obvious fact that Trump or anyone still perpetrating claims of voter fraud have not produced any clear and convincing evidence of such claims. Even you have not.
Clear and convincing evidence is the standard for a verdict in small portion of civil cases.
The normal standard is preponderance of the evidence.
The standard necescary to get to a trial is far lower.
And whether you like that or not was easily met many times over.
The courts OBVIOUSLY failed.
Preliminary hearings are not evidentiary hearings, they are hearings on issues of law.
Evidence is not presented or considered.
To the extent that it is considered – such as in a motion to dismiss the evidence must all be weighed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In this instance the claims of fraud must be assumed to be true.
Evidentiary hearings do not occur until after discovery.
There was no discovery. There were no evidentiary hearings.
This argument of yours is just stupid.
One of the reasons that courts work as I have described is that it is typical that the primary evidence to support an allegation is in the hands of the defendants, and not accessible to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are required to make a credible claim – “on information or beleif”, they are not required to prove that claim to get discovery.
It is the duty of the state to conduct lawful and fraud free elections.
And it is the state that has the records to prove or disprove that it has performed that duty.
If you wish to require that plantiffs in election fraud cases must “prove their case” by clear and convincing evidence (not the actual standard) before they can have discovery, call witnesses …. then you must require absolutely everything about the administration of election to be open records available to anyone in the public on request and within hours of the election.
It took 18months and court orders to get the video from the Detroit election center.
Some of TTV’s video was obtained easily, some required protracted court battles.
“No, courts held preliminary hearings on those cases when the judges asked what evidence the plaintiffs have the majority of the lawyers couldn’t produce evidence of the claims. That’s when the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence. A court can’t “deny” evidence that does not exist. That’s how we know they didn’t provide evidence, because those cases never got past the preliminary hearings once the plaintiffs could not produce evidence.”
This is just complete nonsense.
It is not at all how courts work.
Penitentiary hearings do not occur until after discovery.
The court desicions against Trump were legal decisions not evidentiary decisions.
In a legal decision the court must assume that the evidentiary claims of the non-moving party is true.
The court is NOT permitted to “weigh” the evidence in a hearing on a matter of law.
Most of Trump’s cases were dismissed for lack of standing – that is purely a legal issue.
The problem with those cases is that – whether Trump has standing or not SOMEONE always has standing.
Standing is the court saying “You are not the right plantif to bring this case”
“The burden of proof is on Trump not CNN. Trump is the one suing for defamation.”
Trump’s burden of proof is proving that CNN called him a lair.
That is all.
most of us are familiar with the afforism that truth is a defense in a defamation claim.
That remark is legally correct.
Truth is a DEFENSE – that means it is something the DEFENDANT must prove.
The plaintiff in a defamation claim must only prove that the defendant made a statement damaging to their reputation.
The burden of proof is on the plantif to prove the statement was made and that it is defamatory – meaning it harms their reputation.
If the defense cedes that a defamatory remark was made, or if it is proven that a defamatory remark was made then it is the DEFENDANTS burden to prove that remark was True.
Try a different example.
You shoot someone. You claim it was self defense.
It is not the prosecutors job to prove it was NOT self defense – it is YOURS to prove it was.
It was the prosecutors job to prove you shot someone.
The standard of proof may be low, but it still falls on you.
Truth in a defamation case is an afirmative DEFENSE – something the defense must assert and prove.
“That’s because there was no evidence to examine or cross examine.”
We are way past that and you lost.
This is not how courts work – it is a ludicrously stupid. Your eseentially saying that you have to win on the evidence at a hearing without discovery, witnesses or cross examination, before you are permitted to get to discovery, or a a trial with witnesses and evidence.
“That was the biggest problem for Trump campaign lawyers. They didn’t have anything credible to back up the claims of voter fraud.”
This is just manufactured nonsense that the left and the media have repeated endlessly.
But it is not correct. It is not correct as a matter of fact, it is not correct as a matter of law.
“To date all of Trump’s claims have been refuted or debunked repeatedly. That’s why it won’t be “easy” for him to prove his case.”
Also obviously false.
““ Whether you like it or not the 200 Mules evidence reaches the much higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard – that election fraud occured.”
But that’s not the standard which matters here. It’s the clear and convincing standard that is needed for Trump to be successful. 2000 Mules doesn’t meet that standard under strict scrutiny.”
Please learn something about the law.
Clear and convincing is a LOWER standard than reasonable doubt.
Clear and convincing is the standard that Trump has to meet for proof of MALICE,
Actual defamation is already proven beyond any doubt – CNN called trump a liar – that is undeniable defamation by ANY legal standard.
Truth is an affirmative defense – something that CNN must prove. The standard for that will be the preponderance of the evidence.
But the rquired evidence is NOT was the election fraudulent or not. It is did Trump lie. To prove someone lied – you have to do more than prove what they said was wrong. you have to prove they KNEW it was wrong.
2000 mules would constitute TWO things – proof that election fraud occured – therefore Trump could NOT lie, and proof that Trump had reason to BELEIVE election fraud occured.
“The truth of the matter is still the obvious fact that Trump or anyone still perpetrating claims of voter fraud have not produced any clear and convincing evidence of such claims. Even you have not.”
False, false and false. Clear and convincing is the standard for proof of malice. 2000 mules proves election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt – that is a higher standard. 2000 mules is not even close to all the evidence – it would take days to produce that. But it is the easiest for most people to understand.
If you do not accept that video of a person driving up to a ballot box, Taking several ballots to it, stopping, returning to their car and visibly signing all those ballots, and then depositing them into the ballot box is proof of election fraud – then nothing will prove fraud to you. That video exists. There is absolutely no possible innocent explanation for a person to sign more than one ballot.
You can pretend that someone might be legally entitled to deposit more than one ballot – though it would be very hard to get to 5 in each of 10-20 ballot boxes. But the only person who can sign a ballot envelop is the voter, and no one can vote more than once.
It is not standard practice to scan ballots multiple times.
Further you appear to be unaware that it has already been demonstrated by a partial audit in GA that ballots were scanned multiple times.
What has not been proven is that scanning ballots multiple times was sufficient to alter the outcome.
Regardless, Fraud is proven.
I would further note your “standard practice” claim – is NOT a refutation, it is a counter argument that must be evaluated by a judge or jury.
“ The video showed regular ballot containers on wheels — not suitcases — and both a state investigator and an independent monitor observed counting until it was done for the night, finding no evidence of improper ballots, state and county officials said on Friday.”
You seem to think that because people say something it is true.
The video is direct evidence, your quote above is hearsay.
Do you have actual evidence the container was a regular ballot container on wheels ?
It has already been well documented there were no election observers at Fulton Country that night – so that part of your claim is false.
Someone may have observed counting – but not Election observers from each party required by law.
Further when observers were present they were not allowed closer than 20ft of actual counting – so they could not tell whether fraud was occuring.
I would note that there are LOTS of affadavits documenting this – as well as news reports, and emails and press statements from election officials and video.
Finally, the quote above is actual hearsay. An affadavit from a specific person who was present saying that would be admissible, but an unidentified quote in the news is not.
Haven’t we dealt with enough of this with the collusion delusion – self serving leaks to the press by unidentified government sources are unreliable.
Put your name to it and swear it under oath. That is what an affidavit is.
You keep claiming affidavits are hearsay – most are not. “I saw X” is no hearsay. “Someone said X” is hearsay.
Sometimes Hearsay is admissible. “I heard an election official say ‘count that stack of ballots twice'” would be admissible hearsay.
Generally admissions of misconduct heard by third parties are admissible.
Regardless, if you are going to counter a claim – you must do so with MORE credible evidence.
“I heard the defendant say ‘I am going to kill him'” – will fail when faced with testimony “I saw the defendant 50 miles from the murder at the time of the murder”.
Claims that something was standard procedure – would require proof in law or regulation or procedures manuals.
Claims that something is a ballot box, would require proof – in the form of records of ballot boxes or their purchase,
As well as the chain of custody documents for that ballot box.
Every time a ballot box is opened or closed, every time it is moved, chain of custody documents must be filled out – and certified with dates and times, by an election official and one democrat and republican observer – that is 3 signatures for every change in the disposition of a ballot box.
“It seems that most of the evidence you present is based on the documentary 2000 Mules. That film is not clear and convincing evidence since most of the claims are either allegations or claims made on hearsay. This isn’t good enough to pass the test of clear and convincing standard.”
The proof of widespread systemic fraud capable of altering the election outcome is primarily from 2000 mules.
The film is much more than clear and convincing – it is beyond a reasonable doubt – as to proof of fraud.
The CURRENT degree of proof – without further investigation, of who benefited, and who committed the fraud is not as high.
When the police are called to a scene and find a man with a knife in his back – they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder was committed. 2000 Mules proves beyond a reasonable doubt that large scale illegal ballot harvesting occured
But finding a body with a knife in its back is not proof that a specific person committed that murder.
Fingerprints on the knife would be, video of the murder would be.
You do not seem to understand what standards of proof are and how they apply.
There is not even close o enough evidence to convict Joe Biden of election fraud.
There is far more than enough proof to prove that election fraud occured.
BTW 2000 mules is not the only source of proof of election fraud, there are many many more.
It is just the easiest for most people to understand.
Further the 2000 mules evidence unqiquely proves fraud in each of the 6 swing states.
While the video of the “official” van, followed by a vehicle with out of state plates, arriving at the Detroit counting center multiple times after 3:30A and having boxes with over 100,000 ballots unloaded long after the drop dead time for accepting further ballots,
Further the Ballots received after 3:30A are not recorded anywhere in the election records.
This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that election laws were violated. and atleast clear and convincing proof of fraud.
But not proof of precisely who committed the fraud.
There is literally absolutely no “hearsay” involved in 2000 mules.
There is cellphone tracking data,
Video data,
And testimony of what people did or what they saw.
Hear say is “i heard X say the following”
There is not on iota of that in 2000 mules.
Your analogy is upside down.
If Trump stepped onto the street ans was shot and killed – the killer could claim self defense and everyone on the left would acquit.
The problem with uniform and non-hypocritical standards is with the left.
Trump has been impeached twice for things Democrats do all the time.
Biden actually blackmailed ukraine – and with near certainty for personal benefit – and yet those like you keep making excuses.
Biden is actually publicly demanding the prosecution of political enemies for political reasons.
The core to the J6 committee’s nonsense is the blatantly false claim that trying to overturn the outcome of an election is a crime.
That is just stupid. Democrats do that all the time. Further if that was a crime – no one could ever claim fraud and fraud would be rampant.
Trump and family self evidently did not profit from Trump holdijg public office.
The Biden family has not made money any other way ever.
We can debate whether Hunter Biden’s involvement in Burisma and other deals is a crime.
There is zero doubt in the world that no one would hire Hunter as Dog Catcher – but for the fact that his father has government power.
The Trump’s would own golf courses and casino’s and hotels, and sell branded goods – regardless. They did before and they still do.
Democrats got an investigation into a sitting president – using an obvious HOAX as the basis. They got a special counsel – not to investigate the hoax, but the investigate the false allegations in the hoax.
The rest of us are waiting for the announcement that DOJ has dropped the investigation of Hunter, or that a DC jury refused to convict.
Hunter Biden makes Paul Manafort look like a saint, Yet there is zero chance of a Biden facing real consequences.
Does anyone in their right mind beleive that if DOJ puts Trump and associates in front of a DC grand jury they will get an indictment ? Or that if there is a trial there will be a conviction ? DC judges and juries do not need actual crimes if the target is republican.
And we now find the same FBI agent that pushed the fraudulent Trump investigations, is responsible for thwarting the Biden investigations.
People are not stupid. They fully grasp that there is a double standard.
If you had 1/10th the evidence of a crime against Trump as you do the Biden;’s or Pelosi and family – Trump would have been removed from office and jailed long ago.
“ The core to the J6 committee’s nonsense is the blatantly false claim that trying to overturn the outcome of an election is a crime.”
That’s false. It leaves one crucial distinction. Trump and his associates used false claims of voter fraud, and incited a mob to interfere with the electoral count based on those fade claims. 60 failed court cases, no evidence presented, his own staff and AG telling him there was no fraud. Let’s not forget trump trying to force his VP to violate the law by unilaterally declaring the election invalid. Democrats did nowhere near that kind of action.
“ Trump and family self evidently did not profit from Trump holdijg public office.”
That’s one big fat lie.
“ During their father’s tenure as president, Don Jr. and Eric have repeatedly managed to cash in on their newfound positions of political privilege in their business dealings. So, too, have their sister Ivanka and brother-in-law Jared Kushner, both of whom hold senior positions in the administration and whose companies and investment portfolios netted them anywhere between $29 million and $135 million last year, per their financial disclosure forms. Here are some of the highlights of when the family’s business intertwining with government affairs constituted the “appearance of impropriety” and “conflict of interest.”
https://www.gq.com/story/trump-kids-profit-presidency/amp
netted them anywhere between $29 million and $135 million last year, per their financial disclosure forms
Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Jared. Four separate entities. All doing exactly what they were doing before DJT ran for President.
Now to Bidens brother, and all of his govt no bid contracts.
Iowan2, “ Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Jared. Four separate entities. All doing exactly what they were doing before DJT ran for President.”
Except they did exactly what Hunter Biden did. They benefited from their father’s position. It’s irrelevant if they did it before their father was in office. Both the Bidens and the Trump’s profited from their father’s positions. Since conservatives don’t have a problem with such arrangement when the Trumps do it it shouldn’t be a problem when Hunter Biden does it. Obviously both are legal and not criminal.
The differnce is all had been doing business successfully before their dad ran for office. There is no law preventing them from continuing. Joe Biden has always held elective office, and Hunter has never accomplished a thing. The only thing Hunter ever had was his daddy’s office.
One of the dumbest arguments made about President Trump’s policies is that they benefitted his business interests and that of his children. Well duh. Millions of Americans, from all demographics, benefitted from Trump’s America First policies. What was he supposed to do, crush the financial interests of Americans to avoid the appearance of making policies for personal gain? Biden has been doing exactly that and he’s putting our national security at risk in the process.
The reason that they had all been doing business successfully before is important is because it proves that what they were selling was NOT government power.
No one played Golf at a Trump course in 2014 – because Trump might someday be president and they might want a favor.
Before or after the election, people bought PRIVATE goods and services from the Trumps.
Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, and myriads of other influence brokers – mostly left, but some on the right, are not selling condominiums.
They are selling the excercise of public power, or access to those excercising public power.
This is very similar to the pay for play scheme that Clinton was running while at Sec State – where contributors to the Clinton Foundation got preferential treatment by the State Department.
The most important question is What is being bought and sold.
Iowan2, None of that is illegal or corrupt. Just because Hunter is not as good at business it doesn’t mean it’s illegal or criminal. Neither is peddling influence. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled such actions legal AND protected 1st amendment activity. That’s why even the Trump children engaged in the same.
None of that is illegal or corrupt. Just because Hunter is not as good at business it doesn’t mean it’s illegal or criminal. Neither is peddling influence.
We were told (no evidence mind you) for 4 years that President Trump was a stooge for Putin. That he was illegally (unconstitutionally) making policy decisions favorable to the Russian government for personal gain, for him and his family’s businesses. Now all of a sudden, when actual evidence exists that the only thing Hunter Biden and associates were selling was the influence of his father as Vice President. And then when the evidence shows Joe Biden was compensated for his influence as Vice President, that SCOTUS ruled that was a legally protected 1st amendment activity? Wow! There’s gaslighting and then there’s some third world level willful ignornace.
ignornace 😏 Ignorance.
Olly, selling/peddling influence is not illegal. If you don’t believe me just read the court’s opinion for yourself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-474_ljgm.PDF
Here they upheld that view when they ruled in favor of Ted Cruz
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099256713/supreme-court-sides-with-sen-ted-cruz-in-campaign-finance-case
You are being just a tad myopic in your interpretation of both domestic cases. Neither Hunter Biden nor his business partners registered under FARA for selling/peddling influence. That alone is illegal. Add on top of that that, not only was the influence illegally sold, the Big Guy financially profited from it. In the case of Burisma, the Vice President may very well have committed an illegal “official act” by threatening to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine if they didn’t fire Shokin. Allegedly, Shokin wasn’t looking into the corruption hard enough. I stop short of saying he did, because the Burisma corruption investigation ended under his replacement, Lutsenko, who magically closed the investigation also finding no corruption.
FARA requires an agent of a foreign principal to register when engaging in political activities or those designed to influence the U.S. government or public regarding domestic or foreign policy; taking part in perception management efforts or acting as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, or information service employee; performing fundraising or disbursement of funds; or lobbying Congress or the Executive Branch.
https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara
You should stick to gaslighting about the 2020 election being the most secure in history.
“That’s false.”
Except it isn’t
“Trump and his associates used false claims of voter fraud,”
Only in your head.
“and incited a mob”
Incitement has a very narrow legal meaning and you are not even close.
“to interfere with the electoral count”
Again you use deceptive words,
Trump OPENLY sought to get congress to reject the electoral count.
That is not “interfere” – it is something permitted – short of using force or inducements – which he did not.
“based on those fade claims.”
You keep repeating that. It is both incorrect and not relevant.
“60 failed court cases”
All dissmissed without holding hearings on legal grounds, not on the evidence.
“no evidence presented”
Plenty of evidence, The courts could have chose to hear it if they wished.
I would note that lots of evidence was presented under oath in State Senate and house hearings.
“his own staff and AG telling him there was no fraud.”
Lots of the same people told us there was no Russian Collusion.
Barr BTW was obviously wrong.
And no one but an idiot ever said there was no fraud.
There is no question of fraud, there is always fraud.
There is no question there was more in 2020.
The only question is whether there was sufficient fraud.
“Let’s not forget trump trying to force his VP to violate the law”
Nope the request of Pence was perfectly constitutional.
“by unilaterally declaring the election invalid.”
Except that is not what was asked, and not anything Pence could have done had he tried.
Pence controls how the votes from the states are presented to congress – that is all.
“Democrats did nowhere near that kind of action.”
Of course they have Hillary continues to claim that Trump won by Fraud in 2016.
There are myriads on the left here – even after that claim has been proven to be a hoax, who still repeat it.
Hillary,. the media and the left actively sought to get electors to change their votes – and succeeded with a few of them.
Democratic congressmen have objected to the election of every republican president in my lifetime.
We had left wing riots in the capital in Jan 2017 – though I beleive these were at the inaugural
Bricks were thrown, windows were broken, It is probable the capital was paraded through.
It is not merely the same – it is worse.
But it is not a crime.
“ Trump and family self evidently did not profit from Trump holdijg public office.”
“That’s one big fat lie.”
Nope.
“ During their father’s tenure as president, Don Jr. and Eric have repeatedly managed to cash in on their newfound positions of political privilege in their business dealings. So, too, have their sister Ivanka and brother-in-law Jared Kushner,”
Because you say so ?
“both of whom hold senior positions in the administration”
Yup.
“and whose companies and investment portfolios”
So, so does Nancy Pelosi, and every democrat in congress.
“netted them anywhere between $29 million and $135 million last year, per their financial disclosure forms.”
Last year was 2021 – Biden was president.
“Here are some of the highlights of when the family’s business intertwining with government affairs constituted the “appearance of impropriety” and “conflict of interest.”
Lets just take your first claim. First Don Jr. and Eric were NOT part of the administration.
Next they were selling real estate – not influence.
No Carson did not have to sign off on it. It would be my guess that HUD was involved because a significant portion of residential realestate loans are through Fannie, Freddie, or the FHA. That is not a requiremnt, it is just how things are done.
Further there is a very formal process for approving those loans.
You left wing nuts make the same mistake – particularly with Trump constantly.
In actual free markets – free market actors do not do big (or even little) deals without “due dilligence”
If you buy or sell residential realestate in the US – an army of people will descend on the property.
The will check rent rolls, they will check life safety, they will check maintanence, they will check ADA compliance,
They will check existing loans, they will check for environmental issues, they will check cashflow, and verify leases,
and ……..
This ALWAYS happens. Think bank mandated home inspections -when you by a home – only now the bank has millions or hundreds of millions at stake so they check everything.
There is no oportunity for fraud.
And in the end you do not seem to grasp – the Trump’s made money – because thy SOLD something – something real with value.
Nobody bought residential real estate from them in the way they are buying Hunter’s artwork. They made damn sure they were getting what they paid for.
Absolutely during the Trump presidency – The Trump businesses continued – as they did before and after.
And most of the time they make money – as they did before and after.
Unlike you – most people are not morons.
They know that there is no special benefit to be gained by buying a Trump apartment complex. The value will be based on the cashflow the property can generate – not who owned it.
Do any of those of you on the left have a CLUE how businesses work ?
A small one ?
If you did you would understand the gigantic gulf between the Trump family and the Bidens.
Free market exachanges are value for value.
The Trumps trade valuable property for money (or the reverse).
The Biden’s trade valuable influence with government for money.
No one pays Hunter Biden for anything – except his father’s influence.
BTW your site repeats the same shokin nonsense that has been debunked long ago.
Shokin was not corrupt – if he had been Burisma would not have hired Hunter.
Shokin returned after being forced to resign and has lived quietly and modestly –
he has no Russian sugar daddy.
Shokin was actively investigting Burisma – and Hunter Biden and the VP’s office were well aware of that.
There is hundreds of documents from the US state department – because Hunter tried to get them to intervene,
and because the state depeartment begged the VP’s office to call hunter off.
And it is all in writing.
“ Trump OPENLY sought to get congress to reject the electoral count.
That is not “interfere” – it is something permitted – short of using force or inducements – which he did not.”
Trump incited his mob to use force to interfere with the electoral count. His own supporters have admitted they took his speech and tweets as calls to do so. It’s all on record. They literally used force and were induced. That’s just fact. Trump was intent on stopping the count. He went as far as pressuring Pence to do something he was not legally allowed to do.
Congress couldn’t reject the electoral count. Neither could Pence. The constitution is clear on that. All they are there to do is count the votes. All states certified their votes and by law all the VP was allowed to do is count the votes. That’s his only job.
“ Pence controls how the votes from the states are presented to congress – that is all.”
No, that’s from John Eastman’s flawed legal opinion. All pence is there to do is count the votes. His duty is just a ceremonial formality.
“ “60 failed court cases”
All dissmissed without holding hearings on legal grounds, not on the evidence.”
No. All dismissed because of lack of standing and lack of evidence. Even Rudy Giuliani is in record stating they didn’t have evidence, they just “knew”. That’s not going to fly in any court of law.
Every day more evidence shows trump was lying about voter fraud. Arizona is just the latest.
“ After spending hundreds of hours reviewing these allegations, our investigators were able to determine that only one of the 282 individuals on the list was deceased at the time of the election,” Brnovich said in the letter to Arizona Senate President Karen Fann (R) on Monday. “All other persons listed as deceased were found to be current voters.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-attorney-general-finds-no-widespread-dead-voters-in-2020/ar-AA10cF3m?cvid=acc3b38abc984f26b5b4894128310b83
The attempted coup was based on false claims of massive voter fraud. Trump knew early that he lost. It’s already been established that he knew. But he continued to peddle the lies. That’s the crime.
Unbelievably ignorant.
“Congress couldn’t reject the electoral count. Neither could Pence. The constitution is clear on that. All they are there to do is count the votes. All states certified their votes and by law all the VP was allowed to do is count the votes. That’s his only job.”
Not only can they reject the count – they have before.
This is one of the problems with leftist. They create their own meaning for the constitution from thin air and are totally ignorant of history.
Every single election in my lifetime that a republican has won the presidency, atleast one democrat in congress has objected to counting the electoral vote in atleast one state.
Are you saying that each and every presidential election – those democrats were committing a crime ?
You also do not seem to grasp that the constitution has NO cerimonial provisions. If the constitution assigns a task to congress – that task is not proforma. If they are given a choice – that means they can say yes or no. In 1876 we had very nearly the same situation as we had in 2020.
Congress voted not to accept some states electoral slates and the created an election review committee, and later accepted the recommendation of that committee and they changed the outcome of the election.
“ Not only can they reject the count – they have before.”
When have they done this before? You’re confusing rejection with objection. Members of congress can object to the count but that is all they can do. An objection and rejection are two very different things.
The constitution has no provision for the rejection of electoral votes once they have been certified by the states.
All the VP does is count the votes and declare the winner. He has no authority to reject or “decertify” votes.
It’s pretty clear that you’re conflating objection with rejection. You claim congress can reject electoral votes without showing the constitutional wording for it. Find which clause or article specifically states that congress can reject electoral college votes and I’ll gladly concede to your claim.
“ In 1876 we had very nearly the same situation as we had in 2020.”
No, we didn’t. That didn’t involve false claims of voter fraud and a bad compromise by congress which led to the electoral count act of 1887. Very contradictory and full ambiguities.
That compromise led to the loss of voting rights for the newly freed slaves of the south.
You’re trying to conflate to very disparate events as similar which is disingenuous and dishonest.
“When have they done this before?”
1876 and several times prior.
“You’re confusing rejection with objection. Members of congress can object to the count but that is all they can do. An objection and rejection are two very different things.”
False. An objection is a step towards congress rejected a states slate of electors. I am not confusing the two.
Individual members of congress have the power to object to each states slate of electors.
That power is real. It is not alone sufficient to reject those electors, but it is not symbolic or ceremonial either.
My recollection is that if a representative and a senator object to a states slate of electors, then a congressional debate takes place and congress can vote to reject or accept that states slate of electors.
I do not beleive this has happened since 1876, But it has been attempted many many times.
“The constitution has no provision for the rejection of electoral votes once they have been certified by the states.”
Of course it does. The very fact that congress must act to confirm an election means it has the power to reject one.
And again – that has happened before.
The constitution is not ceremonial. The choices it specifies are not proforma.
I would further note that this is fully consistent with patters throughout the rest of the constitution.
The purpose of complex proccesses within the constitution involving combinations of branches of government or states and federal government – these are the so call “checks and balances” There are very few unilateral grants of power in the constitution.
The purpose of the checks and balances is to do precisely what Trump sought in 2020 – to thwart mistakes, error, fraud.
You choose to beleive that there was no fraud in 2020. But we have been headed towards the 2020 election since atleast 2000.
It should have been obvious to anyone in 2000 that the margin of victory in FL was far smaller than the margin of error, than the least likely extent of fraud.
Regardless, it was obvious to me after the 2000 election that this country was headed for an election disaster.
Bushes “bipartisan” HAV legislation if anything made things worse.
The subsequent move towards early voting and mailin voting are all stupid moves that absolutely assure that we WILL inevitably have an election that pivots on election fraud. Over 100M americans beleive that happened in 2020. That alone REQUIRES a remedy.
If you do not beleive 2020 was rife with fraud and lawlessness – I think you are blind, but it really does not matter – it is going to get worse.
We have an election process that assures that large scale election fraud either already did occur or that it will soon enough.
The complicated scheme of getting from election day to the inauguration exists as a check and balance against ramming a fraudulent election through.
Congress’s election responsibilities are a deliberate check on that.
Ignoring 2020 – when – because without change, when is certain, we eventually get a fraudulent presidential election – and one in which that fraud is grasped by the majority of people by the Time Congress sits to certify the election – are you actually arguing that congress MUST certify an election that everyone recognizes as fraudulent ?
One of the things that became obvious after the 2020 election – is that the courts can not handle this issue. In 2020 particularly the courts were complicit in the lawlessness of the election – they were not going to step in. The WI supreme court which has TWICE ruled that ballot drop boxes are unconstitutional in WI, has ALSO ruled that the court does not have the authority to overturn an election – even if that election was conducted unlawfully. WI is not the only court that has said that.
Further I think I agree with the WI supreme court. Secret ballot elections – which are required by the constitutions of 38 states, make it impossible to undo nearly all forms of election fraud – even if you can prove them.
In the AZ audit about 13000 voters cast just under 50,000 votes. There is a remote possibility given the mess of 2020 this was error rather than fraud. There is a real possibility this is just an indicator of much larger fraud.
Regardless the problem is uncorrectable. Once the Ballots are separated from mailin envelopes, or or turned over by inperson voters, it is impossible to separate the fraudulent ballots from those that are legitimate.
As an example in WI – every ballot placed in a ballot drop box is illegal and should never have been counted.
The reason the WI supreme court said that despite the lawlessness – there was no remedy – is because there is no way to identify the illegal ballots after they are in the system.
This is why the myriad and complex processes that are part of election law are so critical. Chain of custody, Witnesses, observers, specially printed ballots, signature matching, are all the means to sort out ballots that are potentially fraudulent or illegal while it is still possible to correct.
In 2020 these processes were all routinely ignore – in 6 key cities in the country. That opened the door to massive fraud, and made correcting it impossible.
The point is that for a variety of reasons the courts can’t or won’t correct election fraud.
That leaves state legislatures and congress. And you want to claim that both are enjoined from acting.
One of the lessons of numeours partisan conflicts over the past decade should be that whatever one party can do – the other can to.
Turn about is fair play.
Democrats are livid about the tactics that Republicans used to get a 6-3 Supreme court. Those tactics are blatantly political, but they are also constitutional. Do you have any doubt that given the chance – Democrats will employ them ? It is absolutely certain the same thing will come about again in reverse. Various rules changes in the Senate with Obama as president – temporarily benefited democrats, but ultimately benefited republicans. There is no political trick, tactic or advantage that one party can secure for itself – that the other will not learn and employ
There is nothing that was done in 2020 to benefit democrats – that Republicans con not do in the future.
If you do not beleive there was massive election fraud – you should be worried – because massive numbers of republicans do.
If you do not allow them to foreclose even the possibility of future election fraud – the alternative is that they will engage in similar fraud on their own.
In the 19th century in the US the largest expenditure on elections for both parties was the money paid to voters in return for their vote.
It is not magic that prevents that from reccurring. It is the state constitutional amendments requiring secret ballots – provisions that the left just ignored in 2020.
If you make fraud possible – you will get it . If you make is easy enough with little prospect of getting caught – you will get lots of it.
And the courts are not going to fix it after the election.
“If you do not beleive 2020 was rife with fraud and lawlessness – I think you are blind, but it really does not matter –“
John, on all matters anonymous has a one way view and it doesn’t make a difference what the facts are. His ideology blinds his honesty, and from there everything goes downhill.
I linked the actual dershowitz 2000 mules video that Svelaz used to claim Dershowitz called 2000 mules bunk.
Svelaz – as is typical of lefties – deceptively edited the quote, and pretended it meant something different from what it did.
I would note that Derschowitz does later in the video admit that the “mules” visited democratic election organizations – so it is highly unlikely the fraud benefited Trump.
2000 mules is NOT absolute irrefutable evidence that Trump won.
It is irrefutable evidence for massive fraud.
It is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump won.
But I will agree with Deschowitz on one major point – what is necescary is a hearing in which both sides get to make their case, and attack or defend the evidence.
I disagree with Dershowitz’s claim that we EVER had that in the media. But I will agree that there was far greater effort by Cronkite to be fair and balanced. That he actually beleived in that as a journalistic standard – even if he did not always meet it.
Today the media does not even try.
But I am OK with that. It was never a good idea to beleive that any single source was going to provide us with the truth.
If you only know your own side of an argument – you know very little.
I beleive 2000 mules is compelling and irrefutable.
None of the purported debunkings have even come close to weakening it.
But the real test is in a confrontational hearing with evidence presented and cross examined.
I agree with Dershowitz that DSouza is biased. Though not nearly as much as the J6 committee.
And I agree with Dershowitz that his “pannel” was not politically mixed enough.
John, Svelaz is an idiot who is almost always wrong. I think the video in question was posted by ATS and then deleted because ATS purposely used his banned address. ATS and all his aliases SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE BLOG for using the blog’s electronic mechanisms to aid him in promoting his lies.
The video proves substantial fraud existed.
Common sense proved that unless something unknown existed, Trump won the election.
The media is corrupt, and too many people are more interested in their opinions being acknowledged than they are interested in the truth.
When left of center people like Dershowitz or Turley disagree with us, we politely listen. When they disagree with people from the left, they are insulted and, in Dershowitz’s case, canceled by decades old friends. The left has dug a deep hole where it has placed its intellect and moves forward without it.
I have had brief interactions with Lawrence Tribe. He is brilliant and I would love to debate him – and it would be very difficult.
I have also had exchanges with Brian Stevenson, Robert Reich, Richard Epstein and many other high profile and brilliant lawyers.
I have enormous respect for most of them – even if I disagree with them on nearly everything.
These people sometimes deceive themselves – they do not practice deception.
You really are ignorant of history.
1876 Was explicitly about claim of voter Fraud.
The election of 1876 as well as massive problems with voter Fraud were the driving force behind changes in election law and state constitutions requiring Secret Ballot elections.
Without secret balloting you can not prevent inducing and coercing voters. PERIOD.
Mailin voting can not conform to secret ballot requirements.
There is plenty of evidence of significant increases in election fraud in 2020 due to mailin voting.
But even if you do not beleive that – you can be certain that mailin voting will massively increase election fraud.
When you do not have secret ballots – you have fraud – massive fraud – that is the lesson of history,
In the US and everywhere else.
Magic is not going to protect you from election fraud.
it is clear that left wing nuts like you accept that election fraud is real.
You wasted years of public time and energy with claims of election fraud in 2016.
But somehow magically 2020 which is likely the most fraud ridden election in my lifetime, is in your view perfect ?
You MIGHT be able to credibly claim that Fraud did not change the election results – thus far no credible claims of fraud PROVE that the result would have been different. Many of the credible claims of election fraud do not establish WHO benefited. Though for most of us it is easy to jump from there was large scale fraud in Pheonix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadeplphia – therefore it is near certain that Fraud benefited Biden.
But that has not actually been proven.
Regardless, do you honestly beleive that if you make election fraud easy it will not occur ?
Whether you like it or not the US has a long long long history of election fraud.
When the HAV act required the retirement of mechanical voting machines – almost all of them were found to have had teeth filed of the gears.
Fraud in one election likely resulted in error in elections for decades after.
We have election fraud in in person elections – actual secret ballot elections, where fraud is much harder.
This is not just about Trump and 2020. Your head in the sand attitude about voter fraud is going to blow up in your face.
As I have written before – Bush Gore 2000 should have been a wakeup call.
A presidential election was decided by a few hundred votes. The likelyhood that both the Bush and Gore campaigns did not have atleast a few hundred fruadulent votes in FL in 2000 is ZERO.
Throughout the US we have more and more and more elections turning on less than 1% of the vote. The more close races we have the more fraud we will have.
The constitutional wording is quite simple – the certification of the election is made by congress.
If you give power to congress that means you give CHOICE to congress.
This is not complex.
I find it weird that the same people who went well beyond “high crimes and misdemeanors” with respect to impeachment,
do not grasp that as with impeachement – our founders placed no check on the power of congress with respect to presidential elections.
Again the constitution is NOT ceremonial.
And Again – congressmen have objected to counting the electors from one state or another in every single presidential election in my lifetime.
Were they all Criminals ?
Hillary Clinton, the left, the press, and many democrats tried to persuade electors to change their votes in 2016 – and a few did.
Democrats in congress objected to counting the electors from swing states that Trump won.
Yet, NO ONE claimed this was a crime at the time – because that is a ludicrously stupid claim.
Further had actual evidence of Russian interferance in the election surfaced, All of us would have expected Congress NOT to accept the election results.
The power of congress to certify an election is a part of the checks and balances. That power exists as the last barrier to thwarting election fraud.
Which is precisely how it was used in 1876.
And had there been REAL evidence that Russia tipped the election in 2016 – you and much of the country would have expected Congress to reject that fraudulent result.
This is typical of left wing nuts – totally completely different standards would the same issues depending on whether the target is red or blue.
This is simple – There is no crime here, Not by Trump, not by any of those involved. Trying to persuade Congress to reject certification of an election is not a crime. Certification of an election is a constitutional power granted to congress. When congress is given a power, it may use it.
Trump and his cronies are no more guilty of criminal conduct with the 2020 election than Hillary was in 2016.
Even the idiotic Mens Rea argument floating here is irrelevant – Hillary KNEW in 2016 that her claims of Russian collusion were False because they were manufactured by those in HER employ at HER direction.
Even if as those on the left claim – that the majority of americans are wrong and there was no fraud in 2020 and Trump knew that.
There would still be no crime.
But the fact is there WAS large scale fraud in 2020, and most americans KNOW that. The only open question is to what extent did that fraud change the outcome.
John B. Say,
“The constitutional wording is quite simple – the certification of the election is made by congress.
If you give power to congress that means you give CHOICE to congress.”
The constitution does NOT state that congress may reject electoral votes. Only that they count and certify the electoral votes.
The problem with your argument is that you’re conflating “rejection” with “objection” and obviously, those are two very different things.
” Trying to persuade Congress to reject certification of an election is not a crime.” Not, but when it involves inciting a mob to violently interfere with the certification it certainly is.
“But the fact is there WAS large-scale fraud in 2020, and most Americans KNOW that. The only open question is to what extent did that fraud change the outcome.”
No, there wasn’t. No evidence of “large-scale fraud” has ever been produced. Not even by Trump and his supporters. Every attempt to provide “evidence” ends up either being refuted or debunked because they have already been multiple times.
“The constitution does NOT state that congress may reject electoral votes. Only that they count and certify the electoral votes.”
We are back to this again.
Repeating the same refuted argument does not make it any more credible.
The constitution is not ceremonial. It is grants of power.
If congress has the power to certify, it has the power to NOT certify.
Again this has already happened – see the election of 1876.
And please to do not repeat the stupid claim that 1876 was not about fraud.
It absolutely was.
“The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever. Although it is not disputed that Tilden outpolled Hayes in the popular vote, there were wide allegations of electoral fraud, election violence, and other disfranchisement of predominately-Republican Black voters. After a first count of votes, Tilden had won 184 electoral votes to Hayes’s 165, with 20 votes from four states unresolved. In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, both parties reported their candidate to have won the state. In Oregon, one elector was replaced after being declared illegal for having been an “elected or appointed official.”[citation needed] The question of who should have been awarded those electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy.”
“No, there wasn’t. No evidence of “large-scale fraud” has ever been produced. Not even by Trump and his supporters. Every attempt to provide “evidence” ends up either being refuted or debunked because they have already been multiple times.”
False and stupid. The fact that you claim some evidence is false or debunked is stupid.
You do not refute evidence by calling it names.
Nor does actual evidence cease to be evidence even if by some miracle you were to later prove it to be wrong – which has not as of yet occured
We even have the perfect example with the Biden ukraine mess.
You and others have claimed that John Solomon’s reporting – long before the eleciton of the binen corruption in Ukriane has been debunked. But that evidence in in the form of documents – many from the US state department acquired by FOIA requests.
You are free to disagree with their contents – to beleive they are wrong – but they are STILL evidence.
Subsequently SOME of the information from the Hunter Biden Laptop was made public – you and yours told us all that was Russian disinformation. But it obviously wasn;t – that claim was a LIE.
More recently european computer forensic experts were able to recover icloud backups of Hunter Biden’s phone – which has resulted in an even greater trove of information about the Biden’s
All of this is called EVIDENCE – insulting it by calling it debunked or russian disinformation – does not change that it is evidence.
You do not “debunk” evidence – you debunk claims. Evidence you have to prove either is fraudulent, or that it does not mean what it appears to mean. BTW you can not claim those things – you must actually prove them.
If as an example there is video of someone shooting another person. You can not “debunk” the video by getting the shooter to claim – they never shot anyone.
The 2000 mules evidence PROVES without any doubt at all, that over 2000 individuals traveled within a meter of 20 ballot boxes and 5 election related 501C3’s.
To lower standards of proof it establishes that large scale ballot harvesting occured.
You could attempt to refute that – but doing so would require providing a credible reason that just before an election 2000 people would visit ballot boxes and election related 501C3’s repeatedly on the same nights.
Separately any counter you came up with would have to explain why in many instances there is video of people depositing 5 or more ballots into ballot drop boxes at exactly the time the Geolocation data says they were within 1M of that drop box.
Nor is this the only evidence.
There are multiple undercover videos of election officials in Philadelphia destroying 2020 election records (a crime) and admitting they are doing so to cover up fraud.
There is Official surveilance video from the Detroit counting center of vans delivering 50 boxes of ballots at 3:30am – 7+ hours AFTER the deadline for receiving ballots. This delivery and the boxes of ballots are NOT on the official logs from the counting center – there is no record of them. And this is only the first trip by the van.
“No, we didn’t. That didn’t involve false claims of voter fraud”
the 1876 had massive fraud – even by 19th century standards where fraud was commonplace.
From Wikipedia
“The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever. Although it is not disputed that Tilden outpolled Hayes in the popular vote, there were wide allegations of electoral fraud, election violence, and other disfranchisement of predominately-Republican Black voters. After a first count of votes, Tilden had won 184 electoral votes to Hayes’s 165, with 20 votes from four states unresolved. In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, both parties reported their candidate to have won the state. In Oregon, one elector was replaced after being declared illegal for having been an “elected or appointed official.”[citation needed] The question of who should have been awarded those electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy.”
Note – 20 votes from 4 states unresolved was for EXACTLY the same reasons as 2020 – claims of fraud in those states and competing slates of electors.
“and a bad compromise by congress which led to the electoral count act of 1887. Very contradictory and full ambiguities.
That compromise led to the loss of voting rights for the newly freed slaves of the south.”
All true but irrelevant.
We are debating two questions:
Can congress choose whether (or which) slates of electors to accept from a state ? And the answer is clearly YES,
It has been done before, and attempted in nearly every election.
Was the the messy decision in 1876 the consequence of Election fraud – that is self evident.
Were there all kinds of bad outcomes to the election of 1876 – absolutely.
Further the election of 1876 is one of the most significant driving forces behind the Secret Ballot laws and later state constitutional amendments.
Much of the country became fed up with the election fraud that was rampant in the 19th century and did something about it.
And in 2020 – democratic executives – sometimes with the cooperation of some Republicans, as well as a few republicans, used the pandemic as an excuse to obliterate – without the required constitutional process the guards against election fraud that 19th and early 20th century americans thought were so important that they enshrined them in their state constitutions.
These are the requirements for a “secret Ballot”
an official ballot being printed at public expense,
on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
being distributed only at the polling place
being marked in secret.
The Only provision that was not violated in 2020 was the 2nd.
We know in AZ that blank ballots were photocopied wholesale – these are not “official ballots”.
Ballots have anti-forgery features like currency, and election officials photocopying blanks makes the detection of forgeries impossible.
Mailin ballots are distributed outside the polling place. This means that many many many people can gain access to ballots – both blanks and filled out ballots and this introduces near infinite oportunities for fraud.
Mailin ballots are not marked in secret. And that means that voters can be induced or coerced to vote a specific way.
Voters can copy their ballot and get paid for their vote, relatives, employers, neighbors, care givers can threaten voters if they do not vote as they required.
All of this occurred widely in the 19th century, It is why secret ballot laws were created.
You’re trying to conflate to very disparate events as similar which is disingenuous and dishonest.
“No, that’s from John Eastman’s flawed legal opinion. All pence is there to do is count the votes. His duty is just a ceremonial formality.”
No that is litterally how it works. Again The constitution does not create ANY ceremonial choices – there is no such thing.
The fact that you do not like something does not make it unconstitutional or illegal.
AGAIN this has all happened before – in 1876 exactly as Trump hoped, but portions of what Trump sought and Eastman indicated have occured in every election.
Whether you like it or not procedurally and constitutionally Eastman is corrrect.
Further Democrats are being stupid here. There is absolutely no difference between claiming Trump plotted to commit a crime by trying to get some slates of electoral votes rejected, and saying Clinton committed a crime by trying to persuade electors to change their votes, or that Al Gore committed a crime by demanding a recount in FL in 2000. Or that various democratic congressmen committted a crime by challenging on state or another’s electoral votes in prior presidential elections.
Either Trump and all those participating in his efforts to get congress to reject several states electoral votes are criminals – and an assortment of democrats through history are also criminals. Or what Trump tried to do was legal and constitutional.
I would note there is a reason that Democrats are trying to change the electoral count act – and that is because they KNOW what Trump sought was legal and constitutional.
Eastman’s legal opinion was wrong and it required a lot of twisted logic to come to its conclusion. The majority of legal scholars disagree and some outright call it nuts.
Eastman’s reasoning if held would allow VP Kamala Harris to unilaterally reject electors and keep Biden in office of he ran. Obviously republicans would object, but according to Eastman’s legal reasoning it’s perfectly constitutional.
Eastman’s theory has already been shown to be deeply flawed. Even in Texas courts conservative judges have dismissed his legal theory as incorrect.
Trump sought to use fake illegal alternate electors to justify his illegal attempt to overturn an election that he clearly lost. The fact that there is a criminal investigation in the fake electors scheme is further evidence that the claims and reasoning behind the attempt to overturn the election are false.
Trump lost. It’s as simple as that. Just recently another of trumps voter fraud claims has been shot down in Arizona regarding dead voters. Turns out there was only one. Not hundreds and those were legal voters pretty much alive.
The arguments you put forth are so full of holes and been refuted so many times that they are just comical to the more rational and more balanced individual.
Eastman’s opinion is obviously correct – all he sought was to recreate what happened in the election of 1876.
Further it is obvously correct because democrats have futilely tried the same thing in every presidential election a republican has won in my lifetime.
Hillary and the media and democrats, and the left all tried to get electors to flip their votes in 2016.
No one claimed she committed a crime much less prosecuted her.
Numerous democrat congressmen objected to the slates of electors in swing states Trump won in 2016.
No one ranted this was a crime – then or the many times it has happened in the past.
In some instances claims of Election fraud by Russia – something Hillary KNEW was false – because it was manufactured at her direction, was used as the justification.
Had Hillary failed at all her challenges to the 2016 election, and in late December 2016 substantially better evidence of election fraud by Russia appeared – we all would have expected Congress to NOT certify Trump as the winner.
The fact is there was no consequential Russian interference in the 2016 election. and what little there was had no impact and certainly did not favor Trump. But had there been – we would have expected that congress refuse to certify the election.
And no one doubts YOU would be the loudest voice claiming that was both constitutional and required.
The problem with those like you on the left is your “interpretation” of the constitution is ALWAYS the one that gets the outcome you demand,
even if last year you claimed it meant exactly the opposite.
This is why you are not trusted.
You lied about the Collusion Delusion
You lied about the Biden family corruption
You lied about Biden’s competence.
There are so many lies.
Why should anyone beleive you about the election ?
Why should anyone beleive your ahistorical intepretation of the constitution ?
Why should anyone beleive you about anything – when we know you will say the exact opposite should that acheive your prefered outcome.
“You lied about the Collusion Delusion
You lied about the Biden family corruption
You lied about Biden’s competence.”
I never lied about that. Accusing others of lying by lying about it only shows us your true nature. You’re not an honest individual. When you resort to such insults and false accusations you have already lost the argument and your credibility.
. “The problem with those like you on the left is your “interpretation” of the constitution is ALWAYS the one that gets the outcome you demand,
even if last year you claimed it meant exactly the opposite.”
That’s funny. That is what you do all the time. Projecting your own flaws onto others is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance and you have demonstrated plenty of that lately.
““You lied about the Collusion Delusion
You lied about the Biden family corruption
You lied about Biden’s competence.”
I never lied about that.”
We were not all born yesterday.
I am not going to waste my time going back through old posts to find the nonsense by You on each of these.
“Accusing others of lying by lying about it only shows us your true nature.”
Lying about lying shows us your true nature.
“You’re not an honest individual.”
Look in the mirror.
“When you resort to such insults and false accusations you have already lost the argument and your credibility.”
Sometimes the truth is insulting.
You have spread the Collusion delusion nonsense.
And you have accused those who pointed out that it is garbage of lying.
You have spread the claims that the Biden’s are not corrupt, that the evidence against them is russian disinformation, or debunked republican conspiracy theories.
And you have called those rejecting those claims were liars.
You have claimed that Biden was competent.
and accused those who questioned his competence of being liars.
Again – we were not born yesterday.
You have a history you can not hide from.
““The problem with those like you on the left is your “interpretation” of the constitution is ALWAYS the one that gets the outcome you demand,
even if last year you claimed it meant exactly the opposite.”
That’s funny. That is what you do all the time.”
Obviously not true.
As I have noted many times – I am libertarian. I think the constitution is WRONG on several issues.
I do not try to pretend that it actually says what I want it to say.
Further on many of the issues we have debated – I have offered the constitution and the law as they are. Not as I want them to be.
I would further note that the overwhelming majority of my positions on the meaning of the constitution are consistent with hundreds of years worth of constitutional law. Where they are not, I usually make it clear that I am speaking my view,
“Projecting your own flaws onto others is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance and you have demonstrated plenty of that lately.”
Look in the mirror.
We can add lying about Eastman to the menu.
I just posted copies of the actual Eastman Memo’s
My personal representation of them was greatly simplified and had some minor mistakes.
But was fundimentally correct.
Conversely Your claims were false.
At best you repeated the lies or other people with a track record of being untrustworthy. Without being informed yourself.
At worst you you just flat out lied.
Further you and many others have claimed that Eastman was asking Pence to act unconstitutionally.
Yet, Eastman explicitly cites the constitution, the 12th amendment, Adam’s, Jefferson, and more recently Harvard Law Professor and the leading left constitutional law expert Lawrence Tribe.
It is possible that SCOTUS would decide that the Process Eastman was advocating for was not constitutional.
It is NOT however obvious, and its conformance with what Tribe has published in the past makes it absurd for those like you on the left to claim it is criminal.
“Eastman’s reasoning if held would allow VP Kamala Harris to unilaterally reject electors and keep Biden in office of he ran. Obviously republicans would object, but according to Eastman’s legal reasoning it’s perfectly constitutional.”
False, Eastman’s reasoning – would allow Harris to present slates of electors from the legislature before slates of electors from the State Secretary.
Congress would still have to vote on those slates.
Thje VP does not have unilateral power to accept or reject electors – NO ON has claimed that – this is the problem with those of you on the left.
It is exactly like the claim that Trump said Nazi’s were “very fine people” – that is a false claim. It is not even close to what happened.
But you had many people beleive it.
The VP controls how slates of electors are presented to congress. Congress must vote on them.
No one has claimed that the VP can do anything he pleases.
But you have persuaded some people that Eastman and Trump have.
Slowly people do learn that you have lied to them, and that you have gotten them to make fools of themselves as a result.
You will never be trusted by those people again.
Credibility is easy to lose and near impossible to regain.
“The VP does not have unilateral power to accept or reject electors – NO ON has claimed that – this is the problem with those of you on the left.”
Trump has. That is what he was trying to pressure Mike Pence to do. That is the core of Trump’s plan to overturn the election. He was depending on Pence to do just that. Eastman convinced Trump that was what he needed to pressure Pence to do.
“The VP controls how slates of electors are presented to congress.”
All the VP does is count the electoral votes and declare the winner base on that count. The STATES control how the slate of electors is presented to congress when they CERTIFY their electors.
“Slowly people do learn that you have lied to them and that you have gotten them to make fools of themselves as a result.
You will never be trusted by those people again.
Credibility is easy to lose and near impossible to regain.”
That is exactly what Trump did to you only you will never get around to admitting it once you realize it.
“Trump has. That is what he was trying to pressure Mike Pence to do. That is the core of Trump’s plan to overturn the election. He was depending on Pence to do just that. Eastman convinced Trump that was what he needed to pressure Pence to do.”
It is clear you have listened to too much of the MSM and democrats. The same people who lied to you about the collusion delusion. About the Bidens, about pretty much everything.
The nonsense you are spewing was OBVIOUSLY not Trumps plan. This is a stupider argument than the claim that Putin favored Russia.
How exactly is it you expect this alleged plan you attribute to Eastman and Trump to have worked ?
Pence marches into the Capital and announces Trump really won and leaves ?
No one on the planet would accept that. This is about as stupid as the claim that Trump would not leave the whitehouse.
Does Trump have a private army to make this work ?
You are claiming that Trump planned something – you do not have actual evidence of this plan.
And you have not thought out the fact that Your fictional Trump plan will not work.
I guess part of the problem is that it is the left that is lawless. It is the left that beleives they can magically pretend the law is different than it is and somehow things will still work.
If Pence walked into the capital declaed Trump the winner and left. The senate president pro-tem would take up the gavel and proceed though the process of certifying the eleciton. And aside from lots of laughter this alleged plan you claim was Eastmans would have been meaningless.
There are only four possible outcomes that allow Trump to remain as president.
a). An actual coup – which would require the support of the US military.
Even if the J6 protestors had been armed to the teeth – The US military would have put them down in short order.
I know this is outside of your grasp as left wing nuts do not understand the rule of law, but had J6 protestors attempted an actual armed coup – probably less than 1% of republicans would have supported Trump on January 7th.
b). Congress votes to certify Trump’s alternate slates of electors. This required the cooperation of the vice president and even with that stood a snowballs chance in hell of working. But had it worked – Trump supporters would have accepted it – though we likely would have had riots in the street by the left.
c). As in 1876 Congress voted to delay certification and either ordered election audits or appointed a commission to investigate the election, In that even if inauguration day Passed without the election being certified Nancy Pelosi would have been sworn in as the president of the United states until such time as Congress established a winner to the 2020 election.
d). Congress did not certify an election winner, and the selection of the next president determined by a vote in congress, where each state has one vote, and each representative and senator has one vote to establish the vote of the state.
Neither Trump nor Eastman are morons. There actual plan – not the nonsense you rant about was b) above. Because they are not morons.
Your version of what you claim to be Eastman’s plan is no different from Trump unilaterally announcing that he won the election and remains president. Again neither Trump nor Eastman are moron’s, according to your made up version of the Eastman plan, the only question is whether Trump would be escorted back to Mara logo by the military or impeached and removed by the house and senate first.
Any “Eastman plan” like the ones you, the media and democrats propose – as opposed to what is fairly well documented is the actual plan, must actually be constitutional – not left wing nut constitutional – but conforming to the real constitution.
Because it must be accepted by Trump voters accross the country as well as the house and senate.
It is not idiots like you that Eastman would have to convince it was constitutional – but atleast 35 senators, or he would be immediately impeached even if he magically succeeded – which would not happen.
Do you ever engage in more than the most shallow examination of anything ?
“The VP controls how slates of electors are presented to congress.”
“All the VP does is count the electoral votes and declare the winner base on that count. The STATES control how the slate of electors is presented to congress when they CERTIFY their electors.”
just about completely false. The VP is the president of the Senate. During certification of the election, they control the gavel, within limits they preside over the process. The certification of the election is done by congress NOT the VP.
As to electors – here is the electors clause from the constitution.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
For reference here is the clause covering the election of senators and representatives
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
Note that control of the federal election of Senators and representatives is determined by State Legislatures – with an override by congress.
Regardless, Federal Elections are controlled by State legislatures – not State executives and/or state courts.
Legislatures my direct the executive to enforce those election laws – but there is no power to change them.
“Slowly people do learn that you have lied to them and that you have gotten them to make fools of themselves as a result.
You will never be trusted by those people again.
Credibility is easy to lose and near impossible to regain.”
That is exactly what Trump did to you only you will never get around to admitting it once you realize it.
Except that it is not what Trump did.
You, the left, democrats have lied so frequently about so many things.
You are here lying about Eastman’s actual plan.
The reason that Trump has the trust of so many people – is because he does NOT lie like ordinary politicians.
I did not agree with him on many policies and I did not vote for him.
But I trust him to do as he says – because he has.
I trust him to do that – even when I think he is wrong.
To follow the law and constitution – because he has.
I do not trust you, the left, the media, democrats – because you are not trustworthy – you have been more than wrong.
You frequently lie. You claim things as true – when you do not actualy know them to be true – and you never bother to check,
and you do not correct.
Here is Eastman’s actual memo.
1). VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2). When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3). At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4). Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5). One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one – a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
6). The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position – that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.
—–
I would note that Eastman has no expectation that Democrats will agree, and when they do not, he throws the whole thing to the congress as a convention of the states as the constitution requires.
I would further note that Eastman cites Lawrence Tribe as the authority that these actions are constitutional.
Lawrence Tribe is the most pre-eminent democratic constitutional scholar in the past 50 years.
You can claim that this is unconstitutional. But you can not claim that it is unconstitutional to the point of criminal absurdity – because the greatest constitutional scholar on the left is the actual source.
It is delightful that in this example, Lawrence Tribe carries the torch based on his prior statements. The Democrats, with Svelaz traveling far behind, have to fight with their icon. The hypocrisy on the left keeps growing.
I have little doubt that the left will just ignore Tribe.
Tribe himself will disown his own prior analysis.
But the damage is done.
Eastman is no less credible that Tribe for constitutional scholarship that is largely coincident with Tribes.
I personally think that Eastman’s plan stood about zero chance of success. I doubt that sufficient republicans would go along with it.
But that does not make it criminal.
The left is just one massive double standard.
Does anyone doubt that If Hillary could have done this, She would have.
For all we know Tribes opinion was offered to Hillary with regard to the 2016 election.
IS anyone trying to prosecute Tribe ?
I am troubled because I look at the massive misconduct of the DOJ and FBI over the past 6+ years and there MUST be consequences.
But while I can find all kinds of violations of the law, none of those have criminal or even civil sanctions.
Klinesmith got a slap on the wrist for an offense far more egregious than anything charged against Flynn or Stone or Manafort, or even Cohen.
He not only tampered with evidence, he inverted the meaning of evidence, and he did so in an application to a court that has NO adversarial process.
FISA warrants are secret, there is no one scrutinizing them. There is no one to check what is claimed.
This is the circumstance where law enforcement has the highest duty.
Only a few people were fired – and the FBI/DOJ remains as corrupt as ever.
THIS would be my big reason that AG Barr was a FAILURE. Everything he did to restore the integrity of the DOJ and FBI vaporized with his departure.
I read an editorial recently that claimed that Garland is deliberately Fing with Grassely and Johnson – because he KNOWS who deprived him of a seat on the supreme court.
I weakly suspect that Garland is not going to be a rubber stamp for Biden and democrats – but only because he actually cares about his own legacy. ‘
Though frankly he long ago proved that depriving him of a supreme court seat was wise.
This is eastman’s 2nd memo which covers more scenarious than the first.
VP Pence opens the ballots, determines on his own which is valid, asserting that the authority to make that determination under the 12th Amendment, and the Adams and Jefferson precedents, is his alone (anything in the Electoral Count Act to the contrary is therefore unconstitutional).
If State Legislatures have certified the Trump electors, he counts those, as required by Article II (the provision of the Electoral Count Act giving the default victory to the “executive”-certified slate therefore being unconstitutional). Any combination of states totaling 38 elector votes, and TRUMP WINS.
If State Legislatures have not certified their own slates of electors, VP Pence determines, based on all the evidence and the letters from state legislators calling into question the executive certifications, decides to count neither slate of electors. (Note: this could be done with he gets to Arizona in the alphabetical roster, or he could defer Arizona and the other multi-slate states until the end, and then make the determination). At the end of the count, the tally would therefore be 232 for Trump, 222 for Biden. Because the 12th Amendment says “majority of electors appointed,” having determined that no electors from the 7 states were appointed (a position in accord with that taken by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here), TRUMP WINS.
Alternatively, VP Pence determines that because multiple electors were appointed from the 7 states but not counted because of ongoing election disputes, neither candidate has the necessary 270 elector votes, throwing the election to the House. IF the Republicans in the State Delegations stand firm, the vote there is 26 states for Trump, 23 for Biden, and 1 split vote. TRUMP WINS.
VP Pence determines that the ongoing election challenges must conclude before ballots can be counted, and adjourns the joint session of Congress, determining that the time restrictions in the Electoral County Act are contrary to his authority under the 12th Amendment and therefore void. Taking the cue, state legislatures convene, order a comprehensive audit/investigation of the election returns in their states, and then determine whether the slate of electors initially certified is valid, or whether the alternative slate of electors should be certified by the legislature, exercise authority it has directly from Article II and also from 3 U.S.C. § 2, which provides: “Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”
If … the investigation proves to the satisfaction of the legislature that there was sufficient fraud and illegality to affect the results of the election, the Legislature certifies the Trump electors. Upon reconvening the Joint Session of Congress, those votes are counted and TRUMP WINS.
You make alot of claims in your post – I have proven several false.
But you have not provided actual evidence to support any of them.
Cite Eastman that the VP can unilaterally reject slates of electors
Cite the texas court you claim rejected Eastmans claim regarding the constitution.
The only case I am aware of was a TX court rejected eastman’s efforts to evade a J6 committee subpeona.
I think that court was wrong – the J6 committee is not constructed in conformance with the houses own rules and therefore should not be construed as having the power of a house committee. Further there is a question fo executive priviledge.
But while I think the court was wrong – overall it does not matter. If the courts narrow executive privildge – those precedents will apply when Republicans take over congress.
The same is true of questions about the actual authority of committees constructed in defiance of the houses own rules.
I hope that Republicans in power will NOT behave as egregiously partisan as democrats have with the J6 committee,
but if they do ?
Turn about is fair play
You brought this on yourselves.
Ultimately I am not concerned about members of Trump’s circle being forced to turn over documents or testify.
While the process has been corrupted – Bannon is likely to win his appeal, because unlike the TX case you refer to,
No court ordered Bannon to appear. Bannon may be wrong about his claims of executive priviledge, but courts decide that not the J6 comittee, not the DOJ. Though it is likely that ultimately the courts will require bannon to testify and produce documents.
Again I think they are wrong on that as a matter of current actual law and precedent.
But the world does not self destruct if the precedent is changed.
If the courts weaken executive priviledge – that weakening of privildge will apply to Biden in a few months
In the long run – as we have seen the ability to stall and hide documents and testimony has advantaged democrats far more than republicans.
What Durham has exposed 4 years later should have been available to congress in 2017.
Even today we see the DOJ and FBI refuse to answer important questions asked by congressmen.
In 2023 I expect they will be forced to answer.
With respect to your AZ claim – this is just another example of Brnovich claiming one thing publicly and doing another thing.
We have seen the same thing from Raffensberger in GA. He agrees to start investigations and then quietly kills them – often as they start to provide results.
Oddly Raffensberger has claimed historic fraud in Fulton County particularly in the 2020 election as the basis for Taking over Fulton County elections.
So which is it Brad – Fraud or no fraud ?
With respect to the Brnovich claim. Any idiot that think that only one ballot from a dead person was counted in ANY major city int he US is a complete idiot. Brnovich’s investigation itself is flawed – one of the reasons that ballots from dead people occur frequently – even before 2020 and mass main elections is that our voter registration records are abysmally bad. Brnovich claimed that Cyber-Ninja’s provided him with information that was obviously wrong. The sources Cyber Ninja’s had were mailin ballot envelopes, Voter registration records – and the national verification system that retailers and banks use that is considered the gold standard.
300 dead people in AZ did not flip the election. Bu if you beleive here was only 1 your an idiot.
One of the fundimental problems is that Voter Registration information is so bad that it is not possible to stop dead people from voting.
Brnovitch claimed that Cyber Ninja’s information did not match – Match what ? The source for Cyber Ninja’s information was mailin ballot envelopes and voter registration.
If Brnovich is claiming that Cyber Ninjas was wrong – all he is claiming is that those Mailin Ballots should not have been counted – as Cyber Ninja’s claimed.
As is typical of those on the left – you buy what people say when they say what you want. You do not bother to THINK.
Cyber-Ninjas claim that 282 dead people voted in AZ is more accurately a claim that the voter registration or Mailin Ballot information for 282 voters indicates they are dead. Therefore their ballots should have been rejected. That is true no matter what.
“The arguments you put forth are so full of holes and been refuted so many times that they are just comical to the more rational and more balanced individual.”
A both false and stupid claim.
Do you honestly beleive that Voter fraud magically never occurs ?
We KNOW that Voter fraud int he 19th century in the US was massive, we know that it is common place throughout the world.
We KNOW that it has been significant in the US throughout the 20th century.
The claim that Johnson won his first Senate run by stuffing 80,000 ballots has been established to a high degree of proof,.
There are convictions for significant election fraud by election officials nearly every year.
There were two convictions in PA in 2020 (not for the 2020 election) for fraud involving hundreds possibly thousands of votes over many many years.
But you left wing nuts keep trying to argue that somehow miraculously in 2020 – with the weakest election laws in US history and the highest incentive for Fraud, we miraculously had ZERO fraud.
Election fraud is only prevented by well crafted laws, and rigorous adherance to them.
You say there is no fraud – much less large scale fraud – do you have the personal intelligence to create a plan to through fraud tip any election conducted as the 2020 election was ? I do. It is not very difficult to figure out how to create 100’s of thousands of fraudulent ballots with a very high probability of not being detected and a near certainty of not being caught even if detected.
Give me about $1/ballot and I can add whatever number of votes you want to any mailin election anywhere in the country, and I can do so such that even the techniques that TTV (2000 mules) used will not catch me.
And I can do this such that only me and the person who pays me will know.
IF I am sufficiently inclined and have enough money – and it will not take much, I d not even need to be bankrolled.
I can do it from my own basement.
We forget that the George Floyd mess started over counterfiet $20’s – pretty bad conterfeits, yet they still were successfully passed in some places.
In the US it is estimated that 1 in every 4000 notes in circulation is counterfeit.
What those of you on the left fail to grasp is that ballots are money. The winning candidate in most any election – even smaller ones dictates government spending. In the 90’s I was part of a multimillion dollar realestate deal in my city downtown. The city had all but completed final approval for the deal. There was an election, a new mayor took office, all kinds of bogus claims where made and the deal was scuttled,
This was not a government funded deal. All that was at issue was approvals.
A year later the same project was approved – using a different developer who had contributed to the winning candidates campaign.
And that is just at the local level.
At the presidential level Trillions of dollars are at stake. It is not even necescary for political parties or candidates to know about or participlate in fraud to have fraud benefit someone sufficiently for them to engage in it. 45,000 votes tipped the 2020 presidential election, Less than 100,000 would have tipped the house, the senate and the presidential races.
There are hundreds of thousands of instances where governmetn dictates who will get a deal big enough to justify the cost and risk of 100,000 fraudulent ballots.
And once again, it is not as if large scale fraud in a mailin election is difficult, or even requires large numbers of conspirators.
One person can manage fraud on the scale of 100,000 ballots and they can do so such that even TTV’s video survealance and cell phone tracking will not catch them.
If you build an election system that is easy to defraud – fraudsters will come.
We know that from history.
Your head is in the sand.
This is not about 2020. But it is about the lefts complicity. At the very least you enable fraud.
“No. All dismissed because of lack of standing and lack of evidence.”
You can not dismiss for lack of evidence without a hearing on the evidence, No court had a hearing on the evidence.
And Standing is a red herring – Whether Trump or his campaign had standing – Someone has standing is every single legal controversy.
Standing is a court created legal doctrine whose purpose is to assure that in a legal controversy the plantiff is the correct party to be making the challenge. If I am in an automobile accident standing is what prevents some guy living in another town from suing the person who hit me.
Someone always has standing. Every one of your 60 cases was dismissed on the grounds of standing – that is an error that even if they do not understand the Nuances, ordinary people can understand as error.
The other commonly used grounds for dismissal was that even if Trump was correct about Fraud, There was no possible remedy.
Courts correctly do not take cases where there decision is meaningly because they have no power to correct.
The claim by the courts that there was no remedy – essentialy that even if Trump could prove thousands of fraudulent ballots, the Court could not reject millions of ballots to correct for thousands of fraudulent ballots.
That legal assertion by the courts is obviously False. While we do not want the courts “throwing the baby out with the bath water” there are two huge problems with the courts position – first – they are not being asked to disenfranchising millions of legitimate votes. They are being asked Which group of millions of votes is to be disenfranchised. Accepting thousands of fraudulent votes disenfranchises millions of votes NO MATTER WHAT.
Ordinary people understand that – the Courts did not.
BTW the WI Supreme court which has ruled TWICE now that the ballot boxes were illegal and that the election was illegal. Has ALSO ruled they do not have a remedy for that – i.e. that they ca not reject all mailin ballots just because he ballot drop boxes are illegal and the ballots placed in them can not be legally counted.
Regardless the courts are wrong about remedies. Because if true Election Fraud can not ever be corrected.
Is that the argument you wish to be making – “We Got Away with it ?”
Because that is precisely what you are saying whenever you hype the pre-certification court cases.
Finally, Lets assume the courts are correct that they can not remedy election fraud.
That means that either the State Legislature – or Congress can.
The core of ALL claims that Trump committed a crime is that “We got away with Fraud and it is a crime for you to attempt to fix it”
“Even Rudy Giuliani is in record stating they didn’t have evidence, they just “knew”. ”
Again False. Please find the specific and exact quote as you are doing what leftists always do and taking it out of context.
There are and there still remain thousands of affidavits alleging election fraud. Whether you like it or not all these are EVIDENCE.
What they are not – is PROOF. Evidence becomes proof when it is examined and cross examined in court and a judge or jury makes a determination as to whether it meets the appropriate legal standard for the specific type of hearing.
There were no hearings.
Every single lawsuit dismissed was done so on standing or similar legal not evidentiary grounds.
And this is why even today over 100M people think the election was full of fraud.
Because the COURTS failed to do their job.
I would further note this has been typical of the left for decades.
There is massive specific detailed evidence of Fraud in the 2020 election – and it is not possible to get those of you on the left to look at it.
There is massive specific detailed evidence of political corruption on the part of Joe Biden as Vice President – and it is not possible to get those of you on the left to look at it.
Conversely the only evidence of Fraud or malfeasance by Trump in the 2016 election was LITERALLY made up by the Clinton campaign.
And that manufactured evidence that is obviously fraudulent – that you were willing to waste years of the nations time investigating.
The left is the epitomy of the rule of man – not law.
Everything for you is about political power – no law applies to you – only the other guy.
“ You can not dismiss for lack of evidence without a hearing on the evidence, No court had a hearing on the evidence.”
Yes, courts can do that. If you have no evidence to present you can’t have a hearing on evidence. The hearing occurs to determine evidence and when a judge asks for evidence and the plaintiff cannot provide it the hearing can go no further. That’s why the cases are dismissed. It seems you have a very poor understanding of how the courts work.
“ There are and there still remain thousands of affidavits alleging election fraud. Whether you like it or not all these are EVIDENCE.”
Affidavits which were based on hearsay are not admissible in court. The majority of those affidavits were withdrawn when those making them learned they could be jailed for perjury when the claims were to be scrutinized. That alone eliminated a lot of the alleged “evidence”.
“ What they are not – is PROOF.”. Correct. However “evidence” and “proof” are the same thing. They are not two different things. That seems to be the flaw in your argument.
“ Because the COURTS failed to do their job.”
The courts didn’t fail to do their job. They couldn’t do their job because there was no evidence to present. Of the cases that alleged evidence they had no standing. Because either there were incompetent lawyers or just sheer lack of evidence.
“ There is massive specific detailed evidence of Fraud in the 2020 election – and it is not possible to get those of you on the left to look at it.”
It HAS been looked at. What you’re not getting is that the so called “evidence” has been refuted repeatedly. It’s no longer a valid argument. Even Trump’s former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted on record that they have no evidence. They just “know” there is.
“ There is massive specific detailed evidence of political corruption on the part of Joe Biden as Vice President – and it is not possible to get those of you on the left to look at it.”
Not true. Nothing about said “corruption” has been specifically detailed to be illegal or criminal. Just saying it is is not a legally binding truth. It just isn’t.
You said it yourself. Wanting something to be true is not proof that it is. You seem to be wanting it to be without clear and convincing evidence. It’s not that the left is refusing to look at it it’s that there is literally nothing to look at.
“If you have no evidence to present you can’t have a hearing on evidence. ”
Doubly false.
There was plenty of evidence. You can not seem to distinguish between evidence and proof to certainty.
An affadavit where someone says they saw votes scanned multiple times, or trucks with ballots arriving after no more ballots were to be accepted, or ballot boxes that do not have proper chain of custody records, or video of vans delivering ballots at times that are not recorded on election records,
These and much much more evidence was provided.
Further, you do not seem to grasp that the critical evidence – and the burden of preventing fraud lies with THE STATE,
The Trump campaign does not run the elections. The state does. If the state conducts the administration of elections in secret – there is very little way to know whether there is fraud or not.
As an example there are many claims that ballots were scanned many times – in GA this has been proven in a private lawsuit.
Bujt given that the state controls the ballots and the ballot scans and the election records, and where it exists the video of election operations and does much of this in secret – how is it that a candidate or citizen can provide the evidence ?
In each of 6 different major counting centers in the US late on election night observers were chased out, sent home, or denied access in violation of the law. So how is it that we are to know that there was no fraud in those election centers ? No obeservers, no video in most cases, often even the windows were blocked with cardboard.
Very little evidence is supposed to be required to get a hearing, to obtain subpeona power, to present witnesses and to cross examine witnesses.
The standard of proof to prevail after an evidentiary hearing is more likely than not.
The standard of proof needed to get an evidentiary hearing, discovery, and to subpeona witnesses is extremely low – and was easily met.
That is why you claims that all these courts rejected Trump are damning to the courts not Trump.
The only evidentiary hearings were conducted by legislatures. And these provided far mnore than enoguh evidence to get hearings in court.
Yet the courts burried their head in the sand – like you.
Contra to your claim – the refusal of courts to hold hearings undermined trust in the election, in the courts and in government.
“The hearing occurs to determine evidence and when a judge asks for evidence and the plaintiff cannot provide it the hearing can go no further. That’s why the cases are dismissed. It seems you have a very poor understanding of how the courts work.”
Given that I have been in court and obviously you have not – I do actually understand how courts work – and your description is FALSE.
The standard necescary to get a hearing is primarly legal – not evidentiary. The quality of the evidence i weighed at evidentiary hearings. NOT during motions to dismiss.
I would suggest that you read some of these court opinions. Even where they make claims about the evidence – they do N?OT conclude fraud did not occur. They conclude much like the WI Scotus in the illegal ballot dropbox cases – that even if Trump proved the fraud he alleges, there is no remedy.
That is precisely why Eastman is correct about the certification of the election.
While I do not agree with the courts that even if Trump proved his case there is no court remedy,
When sufficient fraud is proven courts are going to disenfranchise voters no matter what they decide.
If the court has no choice by to disenfranchise some voters – it must disenfranchise those who voted illegally or unconstitutionally – even if only a small portion of those votes are also fraudulent.
The great harm of the 2020 election decisions in courts is that the courts backdoor invalidated pretty much all election law.
Law that is not enforced does not exist.
If a state constitution requires secret ballots – the courts must throw out all ballots that do not meet secret ballot requirements,
If they do not – then the election is lawless. After that fraud is irelevant – if there is no election law – then there is no such thing as election fraud.
If the election is lawless, it is not to be trusted.
But if the courts fail, the last chance to thwart a fraudulent election is congress.
Which whether you like it or not is not just a rubber stamp.
Wanting something to be false in the face of proof does not make it false.
“ BTW the WI Supreme court which has ruled TWICE now that the ballot boxes were illegal and that the election was illegal.”
That’s half correct. The ballot boxes were illegal. Not the ballots themselves. They did not rule the election was illegal.
“That’s half correct. The ballot boxes were illegal. Not the ballots themselves.”
You have just admitted there is a reason to believe the election was fraudulent. What is one supposed to think if ballot boxes were “illegal”?
Sounds like a case of fruit of the poisonous tree to me.
No, because the issue was about the ballot boxes. Not the ballots themselves. The ballots were still valid. The court didn’t invalidate those votes. It just ruled the method of delivering ballots was not legal.
Not showing much intelligence today, are you? I had people depositing their ballots in a big garbage bag outside my house. It may be illegal but are you are telling us those ballots count? Are you insane?
Nope , if the ballot boxes are illegal the ballots are illegal – and they found that.
If the ballot boxes were illegal the election is illegal and they found that.
What the actually decided was there was no court remedy for that illegality.
That it is not possible for the courts to sort between legal and illegal ballots after the fact.
This same issue arrose in the AZ audit.
13000 people cast almost 50000 votes.
But there is no means to find those 50000 ballots and remove them.
In a secret ballot election – the ballot is deliberately divorced from any meas of connecting it back to the voter.
Once a ballot is accepted from a voter, it deliberately and by law (and by the process of handling ballots) can not be tied back to the voter.
We can know for a fact that John Doe voted 5 times. But once John Doe;’s ballot is accepted – knowing that fraud occured does not make correcting that fraud possible.
This is why mailin ballots do not meet the state constitutional requirement for secret ballots, and why for a secret ballot the process of assuring the elecigibility of a voter to vote, and the fact that the voter is who they say they are, and that they have no already voted is so critical an why it must be done perfectly and why all error MUST be tilted to reject when their is doubt. Because once a ballot is accepted it can not be removed.
We already know there was large scale fraud and massive lawlessness in 2020. But exactly as the WI supreme court noted – there is no judicial remedy.
This is also why the congressional certification is NOT proforma. Congress is the final backstop against fraud.
Not only are all your assertions false,
but even if they were true – it would not be a crime.
Hillary Clinton obviously knew the Trump/Russia collusion claim was a lie – because She made it up.
Yet she continues to push that today.
She used that to unsuccessfuly challenge the election.
She used that to try to persuade electors to change their votes.
She used that to try to get Congressmen to object to states slate of electors – and some congressmen did.
Yet no one ever alleged that Clinton committed a crime.
“ She used that to try to persuade electors to change their votes.
She used that to try to get Congressmen to object to states slate of electors – and some congressmen did.”
Nothing wrong with that. The difference is that she tried to persuade electors to change their votes. Not seek to reject their votes and replace them with “alternative” electors.
She tried to get congressmen to OBJECT which it’s precisely what the constitution allow. What it doesn’t state is that they can REJECT votes as you seem to claim.
The claim that Pence can unilaterally reject electoral votes is false and doing so is unconstitutional. Pence had no authority to that despite Eastman’s and Trump’s claims. His only job according to the very words in the constitution is to open the envelopes and hand them to the tellers and declare the winner according to the count. That’s it.
“Nothing wrong with that. The difference is that she tried to persuade electors to change their votes. Not seek to reject their votes and replace them with “alternative” electors.”
It is no different, further you MISSED the fact that Clinton persuaded several congressmen to challenge swing state slates of electors
This is EXACTLY what Trump tried. This is exactly what Eastman proposed.
I would love to see you explain what the difference between changing a vote, and rejecting and replacing it.
BTW some of the electors who “changed” their votes in 2016 were replaced by the state legislature with electors that voted as required.
Replacing electors does not happen often, but it has happened.
“She tried to get congressmen to OBJECT which it’s precisely what the constitution allow. What it doesn’t state is that they can REJECT votes as you seem to claim.”
Again you seem to believe the constitution is ceremonial.
Object and Reject are essentially the same.
ONE congressmen can OBJECT.
If there is an OBJECTION by both representatives and senators, then the slate ofelectors is voted on by ALL of congress and that slate is accepted or REJECTED.
Objections are not proforma. They are ONE STEP towards rejecting.
“The claim that Pence can unilaterally reject electoral votes is false and doing so is unconstitutional.”
This would be easier if your language was more accurate.
First there is no claim that the VP can unilaterally reject electoral votes.
The VP has the constitutional power to control how things are presented to congress – such as to control order, and in this instance to present slates of electors from the legislature. This is constitutional and AGAIN already happened in 1876.
The VP normally does not get a vote, but gets to break all ties.
This is what Eastman claimed.
It would help if your language and claims were accurate.
You keep making up claims by Eastman.
I would further note that Even If Eastman actually made the claim you say he did – which he did not.
An erroneous opinion on what is constitutional is not a crime.
Persuing an erroneous and unconstitutional means – is not a crime.
Even knowingly persuing an erroneous and unconstitutional means – is not a crime – unless there actually exist a specific criminal law covering that.
Political disagreement is not a crime, Constitutional disagreement is not a crime. Legal disagreement is not a crime.
Pursuing a false political, constitutional or legal position is not a crime.
When SCOTUS hears cases the losing lawyers are not thrown in jail.
The lawyers challenging the Mississippi are not criminals because their constitutional theories were wrong.
Eastman is actually constitutionally correct, But he was advocating for a “hail mary” that has only occurred once before.
The odds of Trump replicating the outcome of the 1876 election was very slim.
But attempting to do so is not unconstitutional or criminal.
The defense of Trump and associates is trivial.
There is no actual crime charged. ‘
It is that simple.
All of this is much the same as your stupid presidential seal argument.
You misread the law, stretch it until it is unrecognizable, fail to grasp that as you are applying it, every democrat in the country would be a criminal,
And then rant that Trump is somehow charmed when ultimately your stupid arguments FAIL.
What is disturbing is there are judges that allow this nonsense to get to appeals courts.
Sydney Powell is not crazy, nor were her claims crazy. She was just wrong about HOW the 2020 election fraud occured.
She is an excellent lawyer did an incredible job for Flynn and exposed Sullivan and the DC court of appeals. as a biased political hacks.
Powell did a brilliant job for Flynn – whose prosecution was a vile and vindictive political hit job by the Obama adminsitration and FBI.
Flynn exposed the flaws in the Obama administration intelligence operations and was sacked for that, and Obama had a history of weaponizing federal agencies against political enemies – like Flynn, D’Souza, and using the IRS against conservative political groups.
And Flynn had testified against McCabe in a sexual harrassment lawsuit buy a female FBI agent, earning McCabe’s animous.
“ Sydney Powell is not crazy, nor were her claims crazy. She was just wrong about HOW the 2020 election fraud occured.”
She’s a fraud. She’s already facing disbarrment. She’s presented false claims in court multiple times and has been making baseless claims about fraud that have been debunked or she has absolutely no evidence of. She’s in the same boat as Mike Lindell.
Flynn was saved only because Trump issued a pardon. Not because She “exposed” anything.
Flynn lied to the FBI. He admitted it and plead guilty. He was caught lying and as we all know lying to the FBI is a felony.
How would she be a fraud ?
You really have poor ability to use the english language.
Powell did a remarkable job in the Flynn case – given that she took over when his prior lawyers had already sold him down the river.
And she is one of the earliest ones to grasp and expose the depth of corruption in the Collusion Delusion
F. Lee Bailey faced disbarrment many times. All good defense attorneys are threatened with disbarrment, it is a badge of honor.
As to your false claims in court – you clearly do not understand the law. In nearly every lawsuit the claims of one side or the other must be false. In most some of each. All you are doing is proving that the efforts to “get” Powell are politically motivated.
OJ was found innocent in his criminal Trial – should we disbarr the prosecutors for presenting false claims ?
He was found guilty in his civil trial – Should Cochrane, Derschowitz and Bailey be disbarred ?
Powell and Lyndell will do fine. What is most disturbing is that the courts are so corrupt that often it requires getting to SCOTUS to set things right. All this would be simple if there was less of this nonsense about the law as it is not appealing to woke law students who become lawyers and judges and muck up the lower courts based on idiotic misinterpretations of the law.
It has already been proven that Officers of DVS stated that they would tip the election for Biden. Whether you like it or not that is more than sufficient legal basis for Powell’s claims. It has also been proven that DVS equipment misreads mailin ballots in a way that will skew an election. It has separatly been proven they have an incredibly high error rate – about 10,000 times the NBS requirements. It has also been proven that they can be hacked in minutes by a script kiddie.
We will see what happens. but I would be surprised if DVS lets anything get to discovery – they have everything to lose and nothing consequential to gain. But we will see.
Sorry Svelaz, the Flynn case was over when it was revealed that Danchenko told the FBI that the Steele Dossier was all gossip and rumours. The case should have been dropped before the 5th of Jan. But it was not because Strzok unconstitutionally held the investigation over past the point at which any predicate had been disproven. That is actually a huge deal. What has been revealed since is even worse – The FBI knew from the start that the Steele Dossier was a hoax. That means the whole investigation was NEVER constitutional. Had Trump not pardoned people – all convictions would have been thrown out. There never was a legitimate investigation.
You can not investigate someone for murder – when you KNOW the victim is still alive.
But you left wing nuts seem to think you can investigate anything.
Turn about is Fair play and november is coming.
“Flynn lied to the FBI.”
False. That was well established.
“He admitted it and plead guilty.”
Correct – that is what a plea bargain means.
Flynn plead because after the DOJ nearly bankrupted him they went after his family.
“He was caught lying”
Nope Even Strzok’s 302’s said he did not lie.
“and as we all know lying to the FBI is a felony.”
False on so many counts.
First the actual crime is lying to a federal agent in the course of an investigation.
The investigation was constitutional over on Jan. 5 2017.
Given that we now know the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was a hoax from the begining,
There never was any lies to told to any federal agents in the course of any investigation.
I would note that Flynn was NSA at the time – absent the “in the course of an investigation” constraint – Strzok and Comey violated 18 USC 1001 by admittedly using a pretext to question Flynn.
It is important to get the law RIGHT.
I would further note the DOJ withdrew charges – Sulivan would not let them – which is outside of his powers.
Flynn withdrew his guilty plea – Sullivan would not let him – also outside of his powers.
This would have gone badly for Sulivan, had it gotten to SCOTUS. You want something that is disbarable – Sulivan’s handling of the Flynn case is picture perfect ethical misconduct. You do not get to make the law and judical powers up as you please.
There are also serious problems with the Conduct of the initial SC attorney’s – as they failed to disclose their deal with Flynn to others they were prosecuting purportedly using Flynn’s testimony – though they LOST.
Why is it that when the left is involved we have these bizarre legal theories and ridiculous interpretations of law and unethical conduct ?
But lets make this simple – The Steele Dossier was a fabrication of DNC gossip. By Sept 2016 that was All the FBI had as a basis for the XFH investigation. And at the time the Knew it was a fraud. Which means constitutionally the investigations are over.
All of them, and everything that derived from them. Flynn could not have lied to the FBI – because there was no constitutional investigation, and no legitimate reason to interview him. Van Zandt could not have lied to the FBI, Papadoulous could not, there was no basis to investigate manaforte, or Stone. What we have is “worse than Watergate” – the DOJ FBI and Special Counsel being politically weaponized and conducting an unconstitutional investigation.
This should be fairly easy for you to understand.
Everyone knows NOW that the Steele Dossier was a fraud – a Hoax. That is well established.
Most of us only learned that in the past year.
But DOJ and FBI knew that in Sept 2016.
Rosenstein must have known that when he appointed Mueller,
Mueller must have known that shortly after being appointed.
All that conduct is criminal
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
You are dealing with violations of 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.
Garland seems to be very cautiously approaching this as he well should. With recent developments indicating further investigation of Trump’s inner circle, I think there is a pretty good chance multiple charges and indictments occur here including the former president. This is not to mention the investigation in Georgia which is almost certain to lead to an indictment of Trump. It is somewhat heartening to finally see fellow republicans stand up and testify and finally acknowledge the criminal actions of America’s 45 president. It is an immensely sad chapter in our history and Trump’s pending indictments are fraught with political implications. However, it would appear at this point that the political risks are very far outweighed by bringing justice to the first president to attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
Yes indeed Jeff. Just like all the other times that left said that the walls are closing in on Trump and his demise is inevitable. One would think that being wrong so many times in the past would render a higher degree of education. However there is large number of the populace who are not capable of ever learning and they post the same drivel ad nauseam. Snore.
Funny. I’m a conservative republican and if you wish we can compare formal education. Your cult leader is in trouble. Can’t help but to keep looking back at Lindsey Graham saying if we go with Trump he will destroy our party, let alone the nation, and we will have deserved it. The ole boy was spot on.
Funny. I’m a conservative republican and if you wish we can compare formal education.
What’s funny is you expect anyone would believe you are conservative. While you may be a Republican, your comments are straight up progressive. Your tell is the challenge to compare your formal education. The kicker was citing Lindsey Graham. Notice Graham was more concerned with preserving the Republican party, rather than preserving the republic. One more thing, a conservative wouldn’t bring up Merrick Garland for doing anything other than running political cover for the Biden family.
So yeah, you’re as much a conservative as the ‘late” Jeff Silberman.
I thought you would avoid the debate. There are plenty of us Reagan conservatives around. Nothing I have said is liberal by any stretch. Challenging the legality of Trump’s action is not left or right by any stretch. Liz Cheney’s voting record in congress is second to none concerning conservatism yet you would lump her in with the “left.” As for “preserving the republic,” there has been exactly ONE president out of 45 who attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and every one knows who that was.
Liz Cheney is an American Hating POS!
And her dad, lying to us Americans into wars, ie: that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction & then didn’t find any.
Oh Iraq had WMD’s, it’s just the US Govt sold them to Iraq.
Ck; Doug Rokke, his outfit was assigned to destroyed many of them & later died from doing so.
There are only two who stole the election — Biden & JFK.
I thought you would avoid the debate.
Why? Because you think your MA validates your comments?
There are plenty of us Reagan conservatives around.
There are and you aren’t one.
Nothing I have said is liberal by any stretch.
I didn’t say Liberal, I said progressive. Liberal would be an improvement for you.
there has been exactly ONE president out of 45 who attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and every one knows who that was.
There was never a risk to the transfer of power. Based on the intel, there was a known risk to it being peaceful and yet the D.C. Mayor and Speaker of the House did nothing to increase the security profile at the Capitol. A conservative would want to know why. A conservative would never accept the Jan. 6 committee “findings” without all the videos, without including Bowser and Pelosi’s communications being examined.
Since you brought Garland into this; what is your opinion on him avoiding a special counsel to investigate the Biden’s? Do you believe this country avoided a disaster by keeping Garland from getting confirmed as an Associate Justice?
I’m all about investigating Hunter Biden. And I’m all about investigating the entire Jan 6 incident. But denying, based on the facts and testimony of other REPUBLICANS, that there was not a risk to the transfer of power is being openly disingenuous. And if you think Bowser and Pelosi are as culpable as the former president regarding this disaster, then there is no further reason to debate. I disagree with almost all things Pelosi, but she doesn’t have anywhere near the level of responsibility here as the former president does. Also, there is no denying Garland has the proper credentials either to be an Associate Justice or Attorney General. Those are facts. We can certainly debate the politics of his positions or prospective positions. What it boils down to here is you are beholden to the man Trump rather than to the GOP as a party, let alone the health of the republic. And that sir, is probably the greatest disaster of the Trump movement and presidency.
But denying, based on the facts and testimony of other REPUBLICANS, that there was not a risk to the transfer of power is being openly disingenuous.
How exactly was a transfer of power going to be prevented?
And if you think Bowser and Pelosi are as culpable as the former president regarding this disaster, then there is no further reason to debate. I disagree with almost all things Pelosi, but she doesn’t have anywhere near the level of responsibility here as the former president does
Pelosi has the ultimate responsibility in security at the Capitol. Given the security threats that were known prior to January 6th, had Bowser and Pelosi requested the National Guard troops to provide additional security, the likelihood of rioters gaining access inside the building would have been greatly diminished. Of course you won’t debate that, because you have no plausible answer. To this point, conservatives haven’t been permitted to get answers as to why they weren’t requested.
Also, there is no denying Garland has the proper credentials either to be an Associate Justice or Attorney General.
Proper credentials? Conservatives don’t give a damn about credentials. We care about their interpretation of the constitution.
What it boils down to here is you are beholden to the man Trump rather than to the GOP as a party, let alone the health of the republic.
You should quit while your behind. Nothing I’ve said implies I’m beholden to any politician or political party. A conservative would have recognized that. Silberman on the other hand would have been making your same comments.
The events leading up to and including 1/6 are now well known. Thousands of people were in Washington because Trump called them there. He then asked them to go to the capital. It is well documented over and over his efforts to convince Pence to stop the transfer. Including the day of. By definition and including well documented video evidence 1/6 was not peaceful. The entire effort was to stop the transfer of power. The only thing remaining to debate is who gets indicted. Eastman? Clark? Trump? Giuliani? As for Garland you have zero idea of his constitutional positions because there was no hearing. Wait…Let me guess. Hannity said so right? Like I also said, I have no use for Pelosi. But even she nor any of us knew Trump was sending his mob to the capital that day. Time will show the outcome.
The entire effort was to stop the transfer of power.
Repeating that claim gets you no closer to an explanation of how any of the known facts would lead to preventing the transfer of power.
As for Garland you have zero idea of his constitutional positions because there was no hearing.
Right. Because Garland has no judicial record? Alrighty then.
But even she nor any of us knew Trump was sending his mob to the capital that day.
That’s curious. How could you possibly know that without a release of Pelosi’s communications?
Now that we’ve dispelled the myth you are a conservative Republican, do your best impersonation of Silberman and tell us how you and JT are in lockstep.
. But denying, based on the facts and testimony of other REPUBLICANS, that there was not a risk to the transfer of power is being openly disingenuous
Tell me EXACTLY how that was going to happen.
Yeah, I’m still waiting to learn that as well.
Why can’t we get an answer to this simple question
Seriously. I’m willing to listen to the explanation. There was literally no armed federal troops deployed. There was effectively no armed protesters. President Trump’s transition team was working on transitioning. President Trump certainly didn’t have a “deep state” backing him to remain in power. How exactly was President Trump going to stop the transfer of power?
J’arnold:
“As for “preserving the republic,” there has been exactly ONE president out of 45 who attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and every one knows who that was.”
**********************************
With Republicans like you, who needs the ethically-challenged Dims? And no I don’t know who that “ONE President” is unless you consider Hillary’s shadow government coup to be a primal scream after losing the election. Watch “2000 Mules” and tell met that Trump has no reason whatsoever to think the Dims were doing what Dims always do. If you need a primer, look up LBJ and the strange 1948 vote in Harris County, Texas that propelled him into the Senate.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151840
2000 Mules has been debunked by every major news outlet in the world. Including Fox News. Trump lost to Joe Biden. Think about that. He couldn’t beat Joe Biden. And it wasn’t close. It’s not even in the top 10 closest presidential elections.
Here’s an idea. How about we get a Republican with some ideas who can win?
🤣 Your Lefty slip is showing.
Jeff, it hasn’t been debunked at all. Perhaps you weren’t here when we discussed the articles that supposedly debunked it.
I located one response on the subject. You can provide whatever else needs debunking.
The article being debunked was mercury news
• “Ballot harvesting” is a pejorative term for dropping off completed ballots for people besides yourself. The practice is legal in several states but largely illegal in the states”
FALSE
The mules engaged in ballot trafficking, which is illegal in all states. Ballot harvesting, legal in some states, has to do with taking a limited number of ballots from family members or dependent people directly to the dropbox.
That was not done! The ballots were picked up from a central source (ILLEGAL) and then transported to drop boxes in ILLEGAL numbers. There was no relationship between the mule and the one voting, which was also illegal.
This was BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is ILLEGAL in all fifty states.
========
“The film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020.”
The evidence is overwhelming, including videos, whistleblowers, and people interviewed who didn’t know what was happening but filled in the empty pieces about what was happening with the ballots.
It was BALLOT TRAFFICKING WHICH IS ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES.
====
“Plus, experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby.”
One doesn’t repeatedly go by drop boxes in the middle of the night 10 times, suddenly wearing gloves to prevent fingerprint detection.
Cellphone location data was good enough that their data located a criminal who performed a criminal act where they were checking pings. They gave the police the information, and the criminal was arrested. So much for this type of garbage from the left.
“There’s always a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.”
But the uncertainty disappears as the number of times at the dropbox and the center increases. That is why they didn’t use only three events. They used ten times which would be a far outlier. Videos and other information fill in more of the details.
The quote is uneducated. The commenter should see the film and stop parroting what the left wants to hear. He needs to state the truth.
“What’s more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes — increasing the likelihood that innocent citizens got caught in the group’s dragnet, Striegel said.”
3 AM in the morning would be unusual.
“Similarly, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might be visiting both a nonprofit’s office and one of those busy areas. ”
Would they end up at a ballot box ten times? Of course not. One needs to see the film because the data debunk these bogus statements.
=====
“A video of a voter dropping off a stack of ballots at a drop box is not itself proof of any wrongdoing, since most states have legal exceptions that let people drop off ballots on behalf of family members and household members.”
But that means they take the ballot directly from the person to the ballot box, or the ballot becomes illegal. They were taking ballots from an illegal center. That is known as BALLOT TRAFFICKING.
They were BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is illegal in all 50 states.
“And True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone ”
So, according to the article, Philadelphia was the exception, and the other places proved the film’s argument. There was further evidence in Philadelphia. Cameras at ballot boxes are not the only cameras available. But that provides the question, where were the cameras and what happened to the film? It sounds like there was even more unlawful activity going on in Philadelphia.
I don’t think I need to debunk more of this article. Everyone needs to see the film for themselves.
“2000 Mules has been debunked by every major news outlet in the world.”
*************************************
Yep and every major news outlet has about an 11% -16% high confidence factor from the public (lower among Repubs ~5%) so forgive me for not buying the “every talking head says it’s so” fallacy. Liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz finds it compelling enough to mention it on Rumble and say that it calls into question the validity of mail-in ballots.
But hey you’re a Reagan Republican like its 1984 all over again. Here’s an idea. How’s about you watch tomorrow night for the RINO slaughter and then extrapolate your side’s chances among America First Republicans andthe country at large. RINOs are like dinosaurs just with a shorter life span.
Wanna buy a bridge?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx
If I remember Alan Dershowitz made many comments about the election and said there “certainly is probable cause” to investigate along with many negative statements about the Jan 6 committee. When the illegal ballots aren’t counted Biden lost, but that will not change anything. Dershowitz agrees the election needs to be investigated.
The video that ATS uses as evidence was intentionally posted to be deleted so no one could comment on the dates, context, or what Alan Dershowitz believes.
If on video we see what looks like a murder, it is “unpersuasive” according to Dershowitz until investigated. Then one can pass judgment.
In the election case, there were hundreds of thousands of ballots that were illegal, but the video doesn’t show that those ballots would have gone to Biden though for obvious reasons one can deduce they did. Deducement of such nature is not “persuasive” that one would be convicted or Joe Biden lost.
Things have to be linked together. Investigate all the mules. Investigate what happened to all the videos. Investigate the people in control of the data and videos. Tie those illegal ballots to Biden which is not something for the video to do. That is for law enforcement. They need to interview and arrest all the people involved.
Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t want anyone to comment on his poor work product. That is why he makes sure to post such work under his address that will be deleted. Therefore, his post and the video were deleted so he can have the last word.
What did ATS prove? He proves that he is ignorant of the facts and those things he brings to the table mean something different than he wants. It means ATS lost the argument and is hiding his argument in cyber-space. Thank you Anonymous the Stupid for once again proving how devious you are and how you cannot be trusted.
Whew! At least you used the media as your thought leader.
lol
“Including Fox News.”
Really? Where’s that?
“And it wasn’t close. It’s not even in the top 10 closest presidential elections.”
Some 60,000 votes in six key districts. That’s pretty close. (Or is it your desire to ignore the electoral college?)
45,000 votes in 3 states would have flipped the outcome.
The only presidential election in a century that was closer was 2000 Gore/Bush.
Thinkitthrough: Jeff has my back so watch out! There ARE ” a large number of the populace who are not capable of ever learning”. You can count yourself among that number who still believe the “Big Lie”. Like many you have been gaslighted and hood winked by the biggest liar and con man in this country. I will ask you the same Q Pat Cipollone asked of the “Team Crazy”: “Where is your evidence of massive fraud in the election?”. In over sixty lawsuits judges, both Republican and Democrat, dismissed Trump’s claims because he presented no credible evidence of election fraud. That’s good enough for Jeff and me. It should be for you too but, I guess, facts don’t matter for you. So show us one state, just one, where massive fraud made a difference in the election results. You won’t find it in Georgia or Arizona where there were several recounts–even one conducted by Trump’s team– and the result was always the same. Biden won. So pick another state and show Jeff and me your evidence. Otherwise, we must conclude you “post the same drivel and nauseam. Snore” !
Jeff: Right on!
OT
Fox News: We Decide, You Awaken!
Such a shame that the United States cannot reconcile what constitutes: Female, when life begins, secure vote and numerous other issues. Science, statistics, and common sense are now cast aside for feeling, suppositions, believes, others including language and the newest fade of changed meanings, when is recession not a recession? As it pertains to today’s issue, I see it as Secure Elections. The left would have you believe that requiring identification for the right to vote would impact some group of citizens where they would not be able to vote. Such a slight of hand, for every other service the government grants citizens (insurance, welfare, social security, (insert service here)) identification is required. This last election was an example of how not to conduct an election; it was willy nillly, and a comedy edging on the absurd. It’s no wonder why some would question the results. If state governments cannot conduct elections that are viewed as legitimate the Union will soon cease to exist.
Lt. Uhura open a Hailing Frequencies: RIP
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/stark-trek-actress-nichelle-nichols-dead-89/
Does the press really have a “key function within our system?” After all, the world functioned without it for thousands of years. It was only after Jefferson and Hamilton started their own political parties that the press achieved a role. It’s the media itself who claims such a role. They claim their role is to “inform” when in most cases it seems to be they propagandize. Many, perhaps most, newspapers started out as mouthpieces for one party or the other. In the county where I grew up there was a Carroll County Democrat and a Carroll County Republican. They eventually merged. Many large city newspapers once carried the name of a political party. The Little Rock Arkansas Democrat still does. The Washington Post started after the Civil War specifically to “advance the goals of the Democratic Party.” It and the New York Times are now both outspoken advocated for the DNC. The major TV networks are commercial endeavors but they are decidedly left-wing in their reporting, going back to their infancy. Walter Cronkite was supposed to be unbiased but he was in bed with the Kennedys and later turned on the country during the Vietnam War. In short, they’re all liars.
Presumably by “the world,” you mean “people,” since the world functioned just fine without people for billions of years.
People functioned without hospitals or doctor licensure for thousands of years.
People functioned without constitutional democracies for thousands of years.
People functioned without libraries for thousands of years.
And on and on.
That people functioned without X for thousands of years is not central to determining whether X has a “key function within our system.”