Congress, Politics

“We’re Not Going to Allow Them to Steal it”: Raskin Repeats Trump-Like Reservation on Accepting Election Results
On Bill Maher’s HBO Show on Friday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared to repeat his reservation about accepting a Trump win in the presidential election. Raskin said that Democrats will only support a “free and fair election.” Trump was widely criticized for the same position when he said “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results.”

Raskin previously said that he would not guarantee certifying Trump and that, if he wins, he may be declared as disqualified by Congress: “It’s going to be up to us on January 6th, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions.”

Raskin went on HBO to repeat his reservation on accepting the results of any Trump victory:

“When I say we will support a free and fair election, no, we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states, or steal it in the Department of Justice or steal it with any other election official in the country.

If it’s a free and fair election, we will do what we’ve always done. We will honor it.”

Remarkably, as the audience applauded Raskin, Maher added “That is the Democrats’ history: They honor it. That’s the big difference between the parties.”

However, that is not the history and Raskin knows it.

The certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election was opposed by Democrats and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort of then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who organized the challenge.

Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result.

Raskin also insisted on CNN that the effort to prevent citizens from voting for Trump is the very embodiment of democracy: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”

Democrats not only sought to strip Trump from the ballot this election, but sought to cleanse ballots of 126 House members.

We are already seeing an ominous uptick of challenges, which I discuss in my column this weekend. There are also new allegations of systemic fraudulent registrations in multiple districts.

Raskin presumably expects any voters to protest “peacefully” if they are declared the losers.

I am leaving for New York today to join in the coverage. This could prove a long night, if not a long week.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

298 thoughts on ““We’re Not Going to Allow Them to Steal it”: Raskin Repeats Trump-Like Reservation on Accepting Election Results”

  1. Trump is ineligible for office under the 14A. For details see the evidence presented and the rulings in Colorado. Also the house J6 report. It would be a dereliction of duty for anyone to accept Trump as president. This is no different than if Trump was not a citizen, or under 35. The constitution needs to be followed.

      2. * Question: what prevents VP Vance from being seated under the Raskin scenario?

    2. Please cite any source that shows that anyone (let alone Donald Trump) was actually charged with the FEDERAL crime, and convicted of, insurrection. Than you can discuss disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Thank you in advance.

      1. EconIsEasy,
        That would require evidence, facts and due process. Something Democrats do not care about.

      2. Where in the 14A does it require a conviction? It does not. I just says that if you did the insurrection you are disqualified.

        2. “Where in the 14A does it require a conviction?”

          Try 5A and 6A — and the fact that the Constitution exists as a whole.

          Or did you have in mind guilt by Democrat decree.

    4. Trump tried to mickey the Electoral College process in several ways. That is not an armed insurrection. It’s a peaceful, lawyerly coup attempt. Try to keep things straight in your mind. Yes. it sometimes involves nuance.

      The false narratives coming from both the right and left are sickening. Our nation will only go forth to prosper and endure steeped in truth and trust. Factional tribalism with its manipulative infowarfare is a death-spiral. We need to break out of it now.

    5. Simple Sammy sez: Trump is ineligible for office under the 14A.

      Without being charged nor impeached? How Soviet Democrat of you, Simple Sammy! Police state fascism is a natural fit for something with your limited intellect.

      Given your 14A allegations that you memorized from Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, who’s left that we can consider to be eligible?

      Why is Biden in office when his response to your 2020 Election Season Insurrection Of Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Looting, Pillaging And Burning was to announce to his street thugs and American people that they were just being “a courageous group of Americans” (need the link, Simple Sammy?).

      Why didn’t you pronounce The Big Guy ineligible after he incited and defended those MONTHS of insurrection against President Trump in office?

      And Harris: the Senator who told their street thugs and the American people after their failed assault on Trump in the White House to murder him “they will not stop nor should they”. (need the link, Simple Sammy?)

      By your 14A “logic” Simple Sammy, if you were actually a rational consistent human being, you would have been bugling that both Biden and Harris were ineligible for office for the last four years.

      And the fact that neither was indicted nor impeached for fomenting and encouraging the 2020 Election Season Insurrection doesn’t save them any more than you claim that doesn’t save Trump.

  2. Well but, you see, it’s ok when Raskin does it. Because, to use an adaption of Greg Gutfeld’s wonderful quip about liberal thinking: “When your heart’s in the right place your mouth can go anywhere.” (Gutfeld said “hands”).

  3. Raskin is a weasel: “Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result.”

    1. You need to read Elizabeth Nickson on Substack this morning. The steal is a humongous operation. It put me in a downer mood. The Democrats are evil and deserve to be booted out of government, Raskin first!

      1. I went and read her article, and while it does indicate a vast network of leftist activists trying to game online voter registration systems, it’s not at all convincing that an effective “steal” is remotely possible. Remember, there are people closely monitoring this election process from both camps, and the thing they share in common is to quickly detect and expose any organized fraud operations.

        Of course, there will be fraud attempts in the few hundreds this election, just as there were found after the audits post-2020-election. These were not organized. It was a spouse acting on a dearly departed spouse’s wishes, or gamers who moved and were registered in 2 states. It was someone voting their neighbor’s ballot who had moved away without notifying the post-office. There were ~500 such fraudulent votes attempted in 2020, and all were eventually discounted. Nowhere near enough to move the needle diluted by 161,000,000 legal votes.

        We went through this same dumb “dichotomization trap” last time….it had to be either “no cheating” or “massive cheating”, but no talk of actual numbers of cheats (which is the important factual assertion). I think social media has brought out the stupid in this once common-sense, “can-do” country.

  4. “Democrats will only support a free and fair election”, then why do they object to proof of citizenship, voter ID and in person voting? We can only hope that Raskin’s rhetoric is a sign that President Trump will be re-elected.

    1. People by far prefer mail-in ballots (bar-coded for security) over standing in line to vote. About 75-80% will vote by mail this time. I think we need to accept that, and work to enact law that prohibits electioneering when people vote privately in their homes — no text messaging asking how they will vote, no doorbell ringing and arm twisting, no phone calls, no vote farming.

      With mail-in ballots, voter registration becomes the pivot-point where proof-of-citizenship is essential. We should work to make it illegal to enlist anyone to register who is not a citizen. This means passing legislation disallowing non-citizens to vote in local or state elections to close that loophole for getting non-citizens on the voter rolls.

      I’ve talked on the phone to my local election office, and we went through all the major fraud scenarios, and the counter-measures in place to detect and expose them rapidly. If you did the same, I think your confidence would be boosted — it’s nearly impossible to pull off a ballot fraud large enough to matter and not be detected on time to matter. Tremendous work, mostly invisible, has gone into hardening the system against fraud. No election officer wants to risk the embarrassment of being caught in a cheat, or even an honest mistake You need to understand that.

      Non-citizens who vote illegally and are caught get deported. That’s why only a handful will attempt this across the vastness of the US. Nobody can organize these non-citizens on a large scale because of the consequences of being caught doing it.

      1. Re:”People by far prefer mail-in ballots.” My experience with the use of mail in/absentee balloting in the State of Florida since 2012 has satisfied me the that the voter registration and balloting/election process here should be the gold standard for the rest of the nation.

        https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/18/vote-mail-florida-election-ballot-deadline-rules/75245709007/

        This is Florida’s ‘curing’ protocol:
        Florida law says, “As soon as practicable, the supervisor shall, on behalf of the county canvassing board, attempt to notify an elector who has returned a vote-by-mail ballot that does not include the elector’s signature or contains a signature that does not match the elector’s signature in the registration books or precinct register by:

        1. Notifying the elector of the signature deficiency by e-mail and directing the elector to the cure affidavit and instructions on the supervisor’s website;
        2. Notifying the elector of the signature deficiency by text message and directing the elector to the cure affidavit and instructions on the supervisor’s website; or
        3. Notifying the elector of the signature deficiency by telephone and directing the elector to the cure affidavit and instructions on the supervisor’s website.”[1][5]
        Correction
        Florida law says, “The supervisor shall allow such an elector to complete and submit an affidavit in order to cure the vote-by-mail ballot until 5 p.m. on the 2nd day after the election.”[1][5]

        1. That’s all very nice, but improved accuracy depends upon the details of the curing process, does it not? How fraud proof are those?

      2. Election DAY, tally by 2400 hr, vote in person, voter ID, paper ballots, limited mail-in ballots based on specific criteria = Election Integrity.

        1. Margot, Pbinca’s answer is to make things more complex and permit cheating. Every method that exists can eventually cause cheating. Your suggestions are sensible.

          But there is another question. Why should elections be accessible? The impact of people who don’t care and choose to stay at home can significantly influence the quality of our candidates.

          Still another thought. The Democrats disdain regular people from voting. They want their elitist group to determine the victor. How many votes did Kamala receive? Zero!

          1. S. Meyer, the shift to mail-in voting began decades ago with absentee ballots. It was growing every cycle before 2020/Covid. You say I’m trying to make voting systems more complex (adding more layers against electioneering, OK), but how does that “permit cheating”?

            My stance like most, that only eligible persons should register and vote, each should only vote once, and those who are unmotivated to vote should be left out of the process by their own choice. Voting should come from the individual’s own volition, and never be externally cajoled or incented with reward or punishment by a political activist wishing to amplify their personal impact beyond their one vote. I’ve always opposed GOTV, and find it sickening that the Repubs have decided to join it rather than fight it.

            The voter registration process and state rolls are under-regulated, I agree, and need to be tightened up.
            But the last thing I want is for partisan activists from either party being the ones in charge of managing these databases.

            1. Pbinca, absentee ballots were previously relatively small, and we didn’t mail ballots to everyone so they could be gathered, and Democrat operatives could vote for absentees who might or might not exist. You prefer elections not to be secure. One has to wonder why. Could it be that most of the cheating is from the left? Why are the Democrats fighting to keep illegal aliens on the ballot? You probably never watched 2,000 Mules. Why? Was it too painful? That documentary shows what happens in some areas.

              Hopefully, Trump will win with a wide margin despite the leftist cheating. That might reduce the havoc from Democrat operatives that in the past occupied areas of cities, burned them down, killed people and even tried to burn down a federal building with people in it.

              WW3 is around the corner. Two of the Israeli prerequisites were fulfilled. Additionally, the sites protecting the nuclear sites were mostly destroyed. I find the likelihood of Israel destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities not unlikely. Will China surround and blockade one or more of the small Taiwan islands? That, too, is not unlikely. Russia keeps threatening nukes in Ukraine. North Korea enters the picture with troops. Russians have been killed by Americans in the Middle East. Iran has killed Americans in the Middle East. The Chinese are all around. Paraguay is a home for Hamas and, combined with the cartels, provides an even bigger threat.

              None of the above needs exist but for Biden and his crazy policies. You are worried about Trump’s personality not becoming burnt toast from a nuclear warhead. That isn’t an intelligent way of thinking.

      3. Pbinca, if you want to talk about mail in ballots and tell us how safe they are explain what is found below. The margin of victory in Wisconsin in 2020 was less than 21,000. Now is the time to respond, not later when you want to pretend you are being misunderstood.
        —-
        Who Requested 30,084 Mail-In Ballots From Fishy Addresses in Wisconsin?

        CommonSenseElections/StopBogusBallots.com’s recent analysis discovered mail-in ballot requests from—among others—the following active “voters.” They are registered at suspicious addresses in Wisconsin within these categories of doubt:

        2,777: Permanently moved out of state
        1,158: Moved to new Wisconsin counties but still are registered in old counties
        275: Moved away but left no forwarding addresses
        2,325: Undeliverable addresses, not found in U.S. Postal Service database
        442: Nonresidential business locations
        7,571: Missing or wrong apartment numbers (where stray ballots stack up in lobbies)
        3,408: Duplicate registrations
        1,251: Residents have received no mail for at least 90 days
        10,877: Components of these addresses do not match the Postal Service database

    2. ” then why do they object to proof of citizenship, voter ID and in person voting? ”

      Because to a Democrat, “fair” is code speak meaning “our candidate wins”.

  6. We all know it is Democrats who lie, cheat and steal. It is what they do. That is why they are so against voter ID and voting in person.

  7. Good grief, these people need to be voted out and never voted anywhere near power again. There are no words left for any of this. ‘Vile’ would be a great try, though. ‘Despicable’ is also good. They really do project what they are engaged in onto their opposition, it’s almost comical at this point. I don’t know how someone like Maher can say such things with a straight face.

    I can tell you I am never voting dem again, neither are many I know (and I used to). They have shown us precisely who they are over and over again, pretty much daily, these past eight years, and the only thing worse than their dishonesty is their governance. It is not going to be pretty when they lose, but we’re going to have to get through it.

    1. Yeah, when I hear unhinged libs talking about all the horrible things they think Trump will do when he’s elected, enemies lists, reeducation camps, firing squads, etc. I’m almost starting to root for that to happen. There’s a point where the hyperbole starts to sound like a selling point.

    2. Maher can say that with a straight face because he is ignorant and gets his political news from the DNC-Media Axis, which leaves him ignorant.

      1. That’s pure guesswork on your part, and probably incorrect. You claim to know how Bill Maher consumes news media. In his book, he mocks the left as much as the right. That tells me he’s an independent thinker, not a left-wing bot.

    3. And that is exactly why I decided to vote for people who were not up for re-election in my state and I choose to not vote at all for those who are unopposed. But I also understand that why people will not run for office.

    4. James,
      Maher says some liberal things but as of the past few years, he has been calling out his own Democrat party for the insanity they have embraced, just like the good professor.
      Recently he said this concerning the Trump firing squad Cheney hoax, “What do you make of the statement, I woke up today to the headline that Trump had called for a firing squad for Liz Cheney, and this is what I really don’t like about the media: no, he didn’t, he didn’t, you don’t, you don’t have to move me to not like Donald Trump more than I—”
      “By the way, what if people don’t realize it, he’s criticizing her for being a warhawk. I mean, she is Dick Cheney’s daughter. He said, ‘She’s a radical warhawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, they’re all warhawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, ‘Oh gee, we’ll send tens of thousands of troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’”

      “Just to be clear, this is exactly what hippies always said. This is exactly what peaceniks always said. This is Fortunate Son, the song. It’s like, you know what, it’s very easy to sit in your building and send young men to die.”

      I dont always agree with Maher on everything, but he was spot on in this case.

  8. ” I still remember, barely, when they stole Illinois from Nixon in 1960″

    I still wonder how much recycled bootlegging money Richard Daley got from Papa Joe Kennedy for that favor?

    1. Election systems made it easier to pull frauds back then. If you’re willing to dig into the details of how modern voting systems have multi-layered security against large, organized frauds, you would be impressed and confident.

      But if your definition of whether massive fraud took place is simply when your guy loses, I guess looking into the details of how secure these systems are would undermine your “belief”, so you don’t want to know.

      1. Yes, I see how secure the voting systems are–especially in Washington and Oregon (and who knows where else) where an incendiary device was dropped into the ballot drop box to burn up the ballots that had been dropped there. I would not put a ballot to be returned by mail or into a ballot drop box. I see nothing wrong with showing an ID, which I did at early voting, even though one of the check in people knows me personally. (Vote early, vote often!! lol)

  9. The execrable Raskin (and Professor Turley) seems to ignore one crucial fact. A new Congress should be seated on January 3. If that new Congress features Republican majorities in both House and Senate, the actions that Raskin fantasizes about will have no prospects for success. Yes, I am aware that previously, some Republicans in Congress have voted for various politically motivated penalties against Trump, but in the current changed climate, that would constitute political (if not literal) suicide, and it just isn’t going to happen.

    1. * well, I guess you’ve missed the strategy ? You’re focused on the the presidency when you should be focused on congress. IF the presidency runs afoul the the entire ballot is afoul. That includes the House and Senate.

      It’s laughable. Mr Raskin, there cannot be a new congress seated Nov 3 if the presidency is in question.

      What does one do with a combination of profound ignorance, lawlessness, ill will producing desperation, mass hysteria and actual witch hunts, Mr. Turley?

      Thanks for the commentary. Hey! Your shoes untied!

      1. “You’re focused on the the presidency when you should be focused on congress. IF the presidency runs afoul the the entire ballot is afoul…
        “here cannot be a new congress seated Nov 3 if the presidency is in question.”

        This column is ABOUT Raskin and certification of the winner of the Presidential election. Furthermore, the mechanism for electing members of Congress very much differs from that for the President.

        “Time: The 9 Dates That Matter After Election Day”
        https://time.com/7171517/electoral-college-dates-inauguration/

        “Jan. 3, 2025: House and Senate convene
        Every two years, the newly elected House and Senate convene at noon on Jan. 3. If the president of the Senate still has not received a set of electoral certificates by that time, copies can be requested from the Archivist. For the House of Representatives, its first order of business is electing the Speaker. If the Republicans hold the House, Speaker Mike Johnson will likely retain that gavel. Democrats would likely support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker, if they take control of the chamber.
        …
        Jan. 6, 2025: Counting the electoral votes
        The sitting Vice President—as president of the Senate—has a ceremonial duty to oversee the final step of the Electoral College process at 1 pm on Jan. 6, 2025 during a joint session of the House and Senate. Whether or not she wins the election, that role will be handled by Vice President Harris, who will preside over the ceremony as electoral certificates for each state are counted and tallied and a winner is declared.”

        So, if the Execrable Raskin wants to FAAFO within the venue of Congress, it would very much appear that he would need to create something to prevent Trump from assuming the Presidency that would survive the Congressional change on Jan 3. If the GOP controls both House and Senate, I would bet a considerable sum that he and his allies will be completely unable to pull off any such thing. If he tries some legal maneuver outside of Congress, imo he will quickly come up against a SCOTUS proceeding, and lose.

        Your shoes are are the wrong feet.

        1. * Thank you. I wasn’t using just Raskin’s scenario of insurrection. What prevents the electoral votes for VP Vance? Explain that again?

          You have mustard on your tie.

        2. * Will the electoral votes be counted for VP Vance? Reasons?

          You have two left shoes on.

    2. “Execrable” ought to precede “Raskin” in every account, as, e.g., “St.” precedes Paul. It is permanent and always fitting. “Execrable Raskin said today….” “Execrable Raskin voted….

  10. When one sets the predictable Raskin against the current dustup concerning the ballots sent to PA from AZ, his utterances are comical to the nines. One has to be careful not to feel one’s intelligence insulted by tales told by these idiots. However, he is rich with confidence in the success of his manifestations of the soft bigotry of low expectation for the low information voter, the contempt for the intelligence of same being rank among politicians, that it is clear why he and others of his ilk have the hubris to carry on. The fault with in Maher, performing for his whooping cult of psychofans, is that he refuses to challenge Raskin on that score. Fair and balanced he is not.

    1. “The fault with in Maher”

      Maher occasionally talks a good game, but in reality is a spineless weather vane.

      1. To this very day Maher only exists because he’s a steadfast Clinton sycophant. If that were not true he would’ve been erased from public viewing long ago.

  11. When Trump takes power he needs to clean house!
    jail the democrats for their many crimes!

    1. Juries decide guilt or innocence, not Presidents. If there is specific Dem lawbreaking you can point to, please do.
      After complaining about “lawfare” for 4 years, and vowing to end it if elected, Trump is not going to reverse course and subject the country to more political witchhunts. Getting even is not worth it, because it will just stiffen leftist resolve. A smart leader brings change without enraging and emboldening opponents. If Trump wins, it’s time to unify the country to solve problems.

      1. Hahahhahahhahahhaha. After what the Progressives have pulled with their lawfare, not many people have any trust for justice anymore. You can thank the left.

        1. Well, some of the cases were absurd (e.g., the NY business record-keeping fraud case).

          The sexual assault lawsuit? A jury heard all the sworn testimony, and decided that the preponderance of the evidence was that Trump forcibly finger-f’d her, but didn’t rape her. Most compelling was the witness who had been told by the woman 30 years ago, when it happened. That was when Trump was a Dem-leaning real-estate developer, so what possible motive would E Jean Carroll have back then to concoct a political smear by making the whole thing up to wound Trump-the-Republican?…the timelime renders that narrative absurd.
          Jurors almost always get it right as far as the facts, altho they can be manipulated by lawyers and judges about the exact interpretation of the law.

          As far as trying to mickey the Electoral College in 2020, why hasn’t Trump spoken candidly about what he did and why? His defensiveness indicates consciousness of guilt. If he did nothing illegal, nothing wrong, he should feel comfortable telling his side of the story. Why won’t he do that?

          1. pbinca is rewriting Democrat history again: That was when Trump was a Dem-leaning real-estate developer, so what possible motive would E Jean Carroll have back then to concoct a political smear by making the whole thing up to wound Trump-the-Republican?…the timelime renders that narrative absurd.

            Lying by insinuation again, bpinca. E. Jean Carroll has claimed lots of men raped her over her lifetime, before and after she had her pet dog she named “Vagina”.

            She didn’t make that insinuation 30 years ago, pbinca.
            She didn’t make that insinuation 20 years ago, pbinca.
            She didn’t make that insinuation 10 years ago, pbinca.

            She didn’t make that insinuation until “Get Trump!” became what the Cool Kids in New York were playing. E Jean Carroll was celebrated after that accusation in a way she never was for anything else she did in her life.

            And she didn’t make it until Democrats changed the law in what amounts to a bill of attainder, to open a window in the statute of limitations that would allow one person – Trump – to be given a fair trial before the hanging.

            You’re pathetic with your “Please don’t believe your lying eyes, people”.

          2. pbinca tried this: As far as trying to mickey the Electoral College in 2020, why hasn’t Trump spoken candidly about what he did and why?

            Here’s some more of those “why hasn’t” questions, since you wanted to ask them:

            Why haven’t YOU or any other Democrat asked Obama, Biden, Clinton, the DNC why they tried to mickey the 2016 election with their illegally commissioned and paid for “Russia Dossier”?

            Why haven’t YOU or any other Democrat asked Obama/Biden why they directed their Attorney Generals and FBI directors to perjure themselves to FISA courts that their “Russia Dossier” was verified and real?

            Why haven’t YOU asked Biden and Harris why they mickeyed the 2016 election by enlisting 51 intelligence “professionals” to lie the the Biden Bribery Laptop was just “Russian election disinformation”

            Why in Kalifornia Democrat world is it only Trump you want to speak candidly – while the lying criminal POS’s that you vote for heading the DNC get a pass from you and the rest of the Democrats.

            No explanations required from them: just Trump.

            You are pathetic. And you’ve chosen the wrong venue to be that pathetic in. Rachael Mad Cow and the yentas on The View will be more amenable to your sophistry.

  12. Raskin is the embodiment of the Democrat motto: LIE CHEAT STEAL. They are infamous in their adherence.

    1. Re: “Raskin is the embodiment of the Democrat motto…” To borrow from the late great Groucho Marx…”I could never respect a constituency which would elect ME to high office”. So let it be with Raskin and HIS basket of deplorables. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do!”

  13. Trump like?
    More like Democrat Fascist Like! Democrats hate America…that is it!
    They are greedy and want power…how did Obama get $100 Million…with no business or useful talent?

  14. Raskin is an unrepentent fascist in my book. Of course he knows what he’s doing. The irony for me is when Jews are pro-fascist. His friends will turn on him too if they get the power they seek. Does he think any of the pro Hamas thugs are Trump supporters? I know the professor doesn’t speak this way, but if it doesn’t turn around now, he may rue it some day that he didn’t call them out sooner. They won’t care.

  15. The pot calling the kettle black?
    We now see that the J6 Committee and the lawfare actually were campaign strategies. Neither was legitimate, but they are increasingly the stuff of Democrat talking points.
    The J6 Committee was a kangaroo court — nobody to speak for the accused, suppression and then destruction of evidence, hearsay admitted as evidence without challenge, and a verdict before the trial . . . .
    The lawfare apparently was coordinated, which suggests nothing so much as collusion, and the indictments were not only brought by Democrat prosecutors with Democrat judges in Democrat venues, some were so novel no defense was possible (how do you establish an alibi if your accuser does not even remember the year the event happened or the prosecutor is allowed to attribute mens rea without any evidence?) while others were effectively an effort to suppress free speech (Atlanta and DC come to mind).
    The ‘tell’ that somebody had cheated in 2020, occurred when the Democrats, who had contested election results repeatedly, joined some Republicans to insist that no inquiries or investigations were warranted because whatever irregularities might have occurred were so minor as to be insignificant in an election that was declared the freest and fairest ever held anywhere even before the final votes had been tallied in Pennsylvania and Arizona or the New York Times admitted that Hunter’s laptop was real . . . .

    1. It’s really hard to pinpoint the most egregious abuse of the legal system against Trump but I would have to say it was the defamation/sexual assault case because it was so politically motivated and carefully crafted to be a campaign attack. For a major Lib donor to secretly finance a defamation case made by a lunatic where she accuses Trump of a sexual assault that supposedly occurred 25-30yrs ago. He calls her a liar, and that is enough to get this absurd case, with no evidence, into court. But that wasn’t really where it started. The groundwork was for this farce was the Bill of Attainder that was passed by the NYS legislature removing the SOL on claims of defamation for sexual assault. If that wasn’t enough, the judge had a political conflict of interest and had presided over a prior lawfare case. I believe that not only will this case be overturned, but it also likely violated Trumps civil rights.

      1. Here’s the problem with your conspiracy theory. The woman shared her account right after it happened to trusted friends. That was decades before anyone could predict Trump would someday run for President. The person she accused of sexual assault was a real-estate developer, not a Republican politician. So, how is it even possible for her to pre-fabricate her plot 30 years in advance to smear Trump based on political motives?

        False narratives are easy to shoot down when the chronology doesn’t make any sense.

        1. Why didn’t she bring the complaint when it was timely? Can none of these trusted friends recall the time they were told? Who are these trusted friends?

        2. Friends and Family lie all the time in lawsuits. They lie to doctors even more. There are far too many conflicts of interest and secondary gain any more to go on just memory recollection unless written down at the time of the event. Even better is to call the police and immediately, which seems to be the last option any more. Wonder why? About as useful as he “he touched me” 30 years after the fact. And of course it has to be in the area of the right jury pool (very important)

          2. “Even better is to call the police and immediately, which seems to be the last option any more. ”

            Exactly. Even if you do not have faith in the police to do a thorough and objective investigation (I have my own doubts on that score where I am) you have a time and date stamped record of what you allege, which could prove to be even more important.

        3. Pbinca tried this: Here’s the problem with your conspiracy theory.

          Pity you don’t have the same focus on Joe Biden raping his teenage daughter in the shower, raping a young aid when he was a senator… he’s still the Vegetable In Chief in the White House, as we all know.

          Pity you don’t have the same focus on first the Clintons and then the Obama’s having Harvey Weinstein on the White House open door policy guest list for their entire eight years in the White House: a man they were told was a serial rapist and pedophile spent eight years hanging around with their daughters while he wasn’t busy raping other people’s daughters.

          Here is your problem: you’ve earned yourself a reputation here as a false flag liar. With about as much credibility here as e jean carroll – the woman who wrote she’s been sexually assaulted 21 times in her life!

          Fantasy much, pbinca? Don’t find it odd that she didn’t use that Bill of Attainder change in New York law to legally go after every one of those other men she also wrote in her articles and book sexually assaulted her? Don’t find it odd that she’d only choose to go after Trump?

          She didn’t make the accusation 30 years ago as you LIED she did.

          She didn’t make the accusation until 2019, during the election campaign while she was selling a book. That’s one way to sell a few copies of a book!

          A couple of women came forward to claim she told them about it at the time – but neither of them could remember any more details of exactly when than Carroll could. Like her, they couldn’t even remember the year or any other specifics.

          ESPECIALLY if I was a woman and a friend told me somebody had raped her… I wouldn’t have a single problem with my memory. All her witnesses could remember in 2019 was “Trump did it sometime or other”.

          Remarkably like the Justice Kavanaugh hearings where then Senator Harris went full skank to further her career..

          Anywhere but New York – with the help of a billionaire’s funding and a Democrat Bill of Attainder – E Jean Carroll would have been thrown out of court on her ass

    2. You claim the J6 Committee had “nobody to speak for the accused”. Why didn’t Steve Bannon go testify about what really happened? Why didn’t Trump just go on national TV and explain what he attempted to do and why?

      They’ve had an opportunity to defend what they did all along, and all they do is a defensive legal crouch and cover-up.

      1. Both Trump and Bannon explained “what they did.” on TV and radio. Along with an oligarchy, do you wish to merge all three parts of government? Executive privilege is essential, but do you want to forget about it? The J6 committee was a joke, and the testimony was screened to make Democrats look good and Republicans look bad. Why didn’t Pelosi testify before the committee? Because she knew she was responsible? She said so on video.

      2. pbinca tried this: Why didn’t Steve Bannon go testify about what really happened?

        It’s called “Executive Privilege”. And it applies when it’s a Democrat: like Attorney General Eric Holder who refused to honor a subpoena to an inquiry regarding all the people who were murdered in their “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scam.

        Are we EVER going to see you post asking why Obama/Clinton/Biden/Comey/Mueller/Loretta Lynch didn’t just go on national TV and explain what they did with that Russian spy and their “Trump Russia Dossier” that he wrote for them?

        Are you going to ask why Joe Biden demanded second hand executive privilege to hide his recorded testimony to his Special Counsel. Or why he was the first president in history to rule a former president (Trump) and his administration had no Executive Privilege concerning J6?

        Probably not? Democrat Different standards and expectations? Straight from Kalifornia, pbinca?

        You’re a police state fascist hypocritical fraud.

    3. “The J6 Committee was a kangaroo court — nobody to speak for the accused, suppression and then destruction of evidence, hearsay admitted as evidence without challenge, and a verdict before the trial . . . .”

      You neglected to mention suborned perjury, in the form of Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson.

  16. The anarchical conduct of democrats during the Biden administration has given them plenty of practice and muscle memory to do this very thing … simply decide to not certify election results favoring Trump for whatever reason

  17. They feel safe and don’t believe in consequences. If they want to put their lives on the line so be it.

  19. Raskin sounds like he’s ready to engage in real treason and insurrection, which Raskin and his fellow Democrats have demonstrated a propensity toward carrying out repeatedly during their long, sordid and evil history

    1. Weather some prosecutor or judge would call it insurrection or treason, and his heart he’s long been there. Whatever he thinks he wants for our country, I can’t imagine, but it’s horrendous.

Comments are closed.