IMAGINERIES wrote:
In view of the morning news, still 20 percent of the Republican party are convinced that the elections were rigged.
Making me wonder why...And then I am starting to think about his own possible TV ambition and millions of followers....

What is your source? The figure was over half two weeks ago.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/ar … ipsos-poll

IMAGINERIES wrote:
In view of the morning news, still 20 percent of the Republican party are convinced that the elections were rigged.
Making me wonder why...And then I am starting to think about his own possible TV ambition and millions of followers....

As much as I would love to reply, I recall a post by moderators a week or so ago saying discussions questioning the validity of the election are off limits and will be deleted.  So I'll have to leave it there.  Oh God how I wish I could respond.

JustHenry wrote:

As much as I would love to reply, I recall a post by moderators a week or so ago saying discussions questioning the validity of the election are off limits and will be deleted.  So I'll have to leave it there.  Oh God how I wish I could respond.

Don't fret. Daily Caller, Breitbart, FOXNews, OANN, Infowars, Pravda.com are ALL ready, willing, and able to accommodate you without penalty.

JustHenry wrote:
As much as I would love to reply, I recall a post by moderators a week or so ago saying discussions questioning the validity of the election are off limits and will be deleted.  So I'll have to leave it there.  Oh God how I wish I could respond.

Focuspuller wrote:
Don't fret. Daily Caller, Breitbart, FOXNews, OANN, Infowars, Pravda.com are ALL ready, willing, and able to accommodate you without penalty.

But apparently not Ultra Trump loyalist, and head of the DOJ, Attorney General Bill Barr...

Until today's news, I couldn't figure out why Trump was suddenly floating the idea that Bill Barr's Justice Department might be "conspiring with the FBI" in a plot against Trump...

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
Well look at it this way. it could have been worse....when Trump lost he filed some lawsuits,

the democrats on the other hand when they lost set in motion a 2 year investigation at the cost of 32 million dollars to find phoney Russian collusion built on a dossier of paid for lies by the candidate who lost the election against a game show host.
[...]

You make it sound like Trump is done with his horseshit attack on the election. My money says the LOSER will continue LONG after the election, rabble rousing the more idiotic members of his cult--- continuing to destroy faith in American elections.

I am not going to lie--- I thought the impeachment was a mistake----not because he wasnt guilty (I firmly believe his campaign DID conspire with Putin, and the evidence of his obstruction of justice is CRYSTAL clear.)--- but because in this polarized Congress they were never going to get the Republican Senate to convict. It had zero chance of removing Trump from office before the first bit of testimony--- McConnell said his vote was locked up before the hearing began.

Trump loses his "immunity" Jan 20. It will be VERY interesting to see what happens then. Again---my money says he is in for some STEEP legal fees.

rfordphotos wrote:

Trump loses his "immunity" Jan 20. It will be VERY interesting to see what happens then. Again---my money says he is in for some STEEP legal fees.

This would be best case scenario for trump, my money is on him going to prison for the rest of his miserable life.

rfordphotos wrote:
How many times will he claim some deep dark conspiracy---without EVER coming up with ANY proof

Proof requires discovery.  Fulton county just made certain discovery impossible, in violation of a judge's order.  Just one example.  To be clear to the moderators, I'm not questioning the outcome of the election, I am merely saying providing data to dispute claims of irregularities couldn't have hurt matters.  A forensic audit in certain states would have been interesting, or not, either way it would have removed any cloud of doubt.

JustHenry wrote:
Proof requires discovery.  Fulton county just made certain discovery impossible, in violation of a judge's order.  Just one example.  To be clear to the moderators, I'm not questioning the outcome of the election, I am merely saying providing data to dispute claims of irregularities couldn't have hurt matters.  A forensic audit in certain states would have been interesting, or not, either way it would have removed any cloud of doubt.

Discovery comes before accusation.

Think of it as being innocent until proven guilty.

There is no proof therefore the accusations should not be made.

rfordphotos wrote:
How many times will he claim some deep dark conspiracy---without EVER coming up with ANY proof

JustHenry wrote:
Proof requires discovery.  Fulton county just made certain discovery impossible, in violation of a judge's order.  Just one example.  To be clear to the moderators, I'm not questioning the outcome of the election, I am merely saying providing data to dispute claims of irregularities couldn't have hurt matters.  A forensic audit in certain states would have been interesting, or not, either way it would have removed any cloud of doubt.

And the paranoid conspiracy is continued. You cant prove your wild conspiracy because "they" are conspiring to hide the evidence. How convenient.

There is no proof. It didnt happen.

No court has ruled that ANY irregularities of significant numbers to impact the outcome have occurred anywhere in the nation. Trump's own Attorney General has confirmed it---- or is he in on your conspiracy too?

You keep telling us of this earth shattering evidence---but it never comes.

WE HAVE BEEN WAITING A MONTH FOR PROOF 

Trump has Giuliani--- what a clown--- spouting KNOWN lies---because he has NOTHING legitimate - no legal proof, NOTHING that will stand up in court. If he had it--- he would have LONG since used it.

hmmmm how does that old saying go? --- Put up, or shut up Mr. Trump

rfordphotos wrote:
Trump has Giuliani--- what a clown

This Guy, from hero of 911 to where He is today.

Sad.

JustHenry wrote:
...either way it would have removed any cloud of doubt.

It's both scary and fascinating that one single person, with a strong following of believers, can just repeatedly say that "black is white", and somehow that's all that it takes for there to be a "cloud of doubt".

It really reflects back on the original question, "Has Trumpism become some sort of cult".

rfordphotos wrote:
You keep telling us of this earth shattering evidence[of election fraud]---but it never comes.

WE HAVE BEEN WAITING A MONTH FOR PROOF

And the proof is in:

* Attorney General yesterday said there was no fraud.
* Attorney General yesterday said he investigated the voting machines and found no issues.
* Hand tally in Georgia mirrored the machine tally.
* WI, MI, GA, AZ, PA have done partial audits/recounts that show no fraud.
* Amount of mail-in ballots sent out is more than amount returned.
* Physical paper ballots exist for nearly every vote cast and no systemic fraud found.
* All mail-in ballots have security measures that identify the ballot as official.
* All mail-in ballots can be identified to the registered voter for verification.
* In-person voting is secured by voter registration rolls that permit only 1 vote per registrant.
* Republicans had access to monitor voting/counting in every precinct.
* Independent monitors throughout the country saw nothing suspicious.
* 50 independent state elections make fraud nearly impossible on a coordinated basis.
* Tens of thousands of poll workers make fraud nearly impossible on a coordinated basis.
* Trump filed 38 election lawsuits-all dismissed (except 1 in PA concerning very few ballots.
* All states followed their precise Election Laws and certified electors (or will) pursuant to state law.

Yes, the proof is in. The election was free and fair and only legal ballots were counted. To differ is to show your “kool-aid card”.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Ignorance and apathy are a dangerous combination.

Some one asked me once what was worse, ignorance or apathy?  I responded “I don’t know and I don’t care”

rfordphotos wrote:
Trump loses his "immunity" Jan 20. It will be VERY interesting to see what happens then.

Pence will be president before that and he will pardon Trump.

Shot By Adam  wrote:
....

You’re supposed to just drink the Trump Kool-Aid, not take a bath in it! 😆

LightDreams wrote:

It's both scary and fascinating that one single person, with a strong following of believers, can just repeatedly say that "black is white", and somehow that's all that it takes for there to be a "cloud of doubt".

It really reflects back on the original question, "Has Trumpism become some sort of cult".

Once again, let me remind you that the moderators here have forbidden discussion disputing the validity of the election.  That handicaps my responses tremendously as I plan on staying within the rules here.  As expected, you will take full and unfair advantage of that handicap.  Enjoy the opportunity.

JustHenry wrote:
Once again, let me remind you that the moderators here have forbidden discussion disputing the validity of the election.  That handicaps my responses tremendously

Translation: I don't have anything.

JustHenry wrote:
Once again, let me remind you that the moderators here have forbidden discussion disputing the validity of the election.  That handicaps my responses tremendously as I plan on staying within the rules here.  As expected, you will take full and unfair advantage of that handicap.  Enjoy the opportunity.

Translation: Whining. (a real Trumpy trait.)

JustHenry wrote:

Once again, let me remind you that the moderators here have forbidden discussion disputing the validity of the election.  That handicaps my responses tremendously as I plan on staying within the rules here.  As expected, you will take full and unfair advantage of that handicap.  Enjoy the opportunity.

Don't waste your time here. You must have the clinching evidence that the Elite Strike Force Legal Klown Team needs STAT! Whatever THEY have is not working! HURRY! 😂

JustHenry wrote:
Once again, let me remind you that the moderators here have forbidden discussion disputing the validity of the election.  That handicaps my responses tremendously as I plan on staying within the rules here.  As expected, you will take full and unfair advantage of that handicap.  Enjoy the opportunity.

Dont try and blame the Mods for your inability to defend a lie. Produce the proof. A full month has passed----and Trump's efforts to overthrow the election have come to NOTHING.

Produce the proof.

Poor you. It must be soooooo hard trying to defend "alternate facts" that just keep being laughed out of the courts. Little Billy Barr says "nothing there"---- Even Trump toadie Chris Christie says Trump's flailing around trying to overthrow a legitimate election has become --"a national embarrassment"--

Is there anyone on the planet who ISNT conspiring against you and your bunch?

All the judges who ruled against your cases----CONSPIRED against you. Even the ones Trump appointed....

All the various state election officials (from BOTH parties) all CONSPIRED against you.

All the poll workers, the hundred and hundreds of them, all across the entire nation----all CONSPIRED against you.

(MY favorite)----Hugo Chavez died in 2013----but your bunch is trying to say he had a hand in throwing the election to Biden.... Like I said- he died in 2013---TWO years before Trump announced in 2015---- and SIX years before Biden announced...  And you wonder why people are laughing at you?

Every single media outlet except OANN CONSPIRED against you.

The 80 MILLION voters who voted for Biden---all CONSPIRED against you.

Damn man----it must A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y. SUCK to be you.

rfordphotos wrote:
Trump has Giuliani

from America's Mayor
          to
a noun, a verb and 9/11
        to
The guy melting like the Nazis when they see The Ark of the Covenant.

Baanthai wrote:
Translation: Whining. (a real Trumpy trait.)

"That handicaps my responses tremendously "

And most non-MAGATS wouldn't call TRUTH a "handicap". 😂

JustHenry wrote:
...

To be fair to JustHenry, you have to understand that with the TV he watches, he's being fed (over and over again) that there really are TONS of examples of outright election fraud.  And "that no one can reasonably dispute it".

He DOESN'T understand that the Trump lawyers say one thing outside of court and make all sorts of incredible claims, and then they walk into court and say no such thing.  You see there are very strong penalties for lawyers who deliberately and knowingly tell outright lies to a judge.  Which isn't the same as pushing some wild, but reasonably plausible theories about actual evidence presented in court.

The (largely Republican) Judges most frequently point out that the Trump team "didn't even attempt to make any of their key claims IN COURT.  A number of them have asked "then why are we even here?".   Anyone can read the court decisions and the most common theme is that the Trump team "never even suggested any of the (so-called) major issues".

And in the rare case where they did, the (largely Republican) Judge's decisions are absolutely SCATHING.

So JustHenry REALLY BELIEVES that he has all sorts of "well known" (to Fox News viewers) examples, but he doesn't understand that EVERY MAJOR CLAIM seems to just evaporate into thin air when it's time to present it to a Judge.

LightDreams wrote:
...So JustHenry REALLY BELIEVES that he has all sorts of "well known" (to Fox News viewers) examples, but he doesn't understand that EVERY MAJOR CLAIM seems to just evaporate into thin air when it's time to present it to a Judge.

Even Fox News, and even MORE amazing is Total Right Wing Trump Penis Sucker TUCKER CARLSON has recently stated things about Trumps election fraud claims being nonsense and the cultists still refuse to believe it.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1329595108078063619

Le'see... who to believe???  Judges, Election Officials, Poll Workers, and 99% of the press,  OR  A few idiotic cult attorneys  that can't tell the difference between an upscale hotel and a Lawn & Garden Center parking lot.

PHP-Photography wrote:

Pence will be president before that and he will pardon Trump.

It doesn’t matter if Trump resigns so Pence can pardon him or he tries to pardon himself. The President can only pardon Federal offenses. He can do nothing about the likely charges by the state of New York.

Robert Lynch wrote:
It doesn’t matter if Trump resigns so Pence can pardon him or he tries to pardon himself. The President can only pardon Federal offenses. He can do nothing about the likely charges by the state of New York.

You're quite right that the pardon wouldn't help him with the New York charges...

But there are OTHER legal advantages IF Pence pardons Trump (and/or his family and immediate cohorts) INSTEAD of Trump issuing those pardons himself.

As best as I understand it (listening to the actual law experts), there is a strong case to be made that pardons issued that were "self dealing" (i.e. intended to inappropriately benefit the President who issued the pardon) would be ruled "invalid".

I gather there are a conflict of different laws that collide in such a situation.  So a pardon that was issued in exchange for a bribe, for example, is clearly inappropriate as it was designed to "self deal" / benefit the President personally.  Before the Trump administration, apparently it has always been assumed in legal circles that a President who pardoned someone to impede an investigation for the purpose of protecting himself, would very likely be ruled invalid.   And a President who specifically pardoned himself would be the most extreme example of "self dealing" and almost certainly invalid.

And it's also a clear conflict with the Supreme Court rulings that "no one, including the President, is above the law".

The BIG question has become that with the new Supreme Court picks, that (at least Trump believes) have only one real purpose (to protect the President), when such a case comes before them, would the Supreme Court actually rule that the President CAN actually issue "self dealing" pardons?  Remember, a wide spread legal assumption that was not explicitly and directly spelled out or directly tested in the Supreme Court, doesn't mean that it's guaranteed. And that's the problem.

The only part that the Supreme Court HAS definitively upheld, is that the President is not above the law.  So no one is sure what would NOW happen if the President issued inappropriate "self protecting / self dealing" style pardons, and the various laws conflict.

BUT, lets say instead, that those SAME pardons (to Trump and his cohorts) are actually issued by President Pence.   The legal question tilts more in favor of them being valid (much harder to prove "self dealing").

So, while nothing is guaranteed on this issue, if PENCE issues the pardons, Trump has a much better chance of the pardons standing up, protecting him from FEDERAL charges.  Which MIGHT NOT be the case if Trump issues them himself.  I.E. He MAY still be vulnerable to FEDERAL charges if he tries to pardon himself.

Sorry for the long explanation, but it seems to be just that kind of a rather complicated legal mess...

Shot By Adam wrote:
Not so much "rigged" but definitely massive cases of weird voter irregularities and fraud issues that all add up to something pretty close to a rigged election, yes. Was just watching the hearing last night about the 570,000 votes that all got dropped off at one time in Pennsylvania where the count was 99.4% Biden votes. An absolute statistical impossibility, but yeah, no such thing as voter fraud LOL.

I just researched what you wrote and I found the story in the "Coal Region Canary," which is far and away the best trusted source of news in the state.  It comes from a long history of canaries in coal mines dropping dead and that was a warning that the mine was filling with dangerous levels of toxic gas, much like the gas let out by the expert witness.  Let us also take note that the analogy that is made with the canary in the coal mine does not apply if your neighbors and fellow citizens are dropping dead.  The virus is still a hoax in that case.

We have paper ballots in Pennsylvania, be it by mail or at the poling station.  Every one that signs in to vote by mail or at the polling place creates a document trail.  At polling stations we sign next to an image of our signature from a recent election.  By mail, there are forms to fill out.  Not everyone in the state is sent a mail in ballot.  You have to ask for them.  We are fortunate we no longer need a reason to get a mail in ballot- which is really a decent way to run it.  My ability to vote shouldn't be dependent on my car starting that morning or line being a reasonable wait.

Not that I want to dispute the expert, but if I fill out a paper ballot at the polling place and it is fed into a machine which scans it, saves it and prints me a copy that I can use to prove how I voted.  How then are the machines hacked to alter my vote?  They are not hooked to the internet.

We vote according to county.  If these ballots were dumped all at once, into which county were they dumped and why don't the records show that 570,000 more votes were counted then the number of voters that signed in at the polls or returned a mail in ballot? 

The expert provided no proof, but more than that, while the courts were throwing out frivolous lawsuits because the petitioners presented zero evidence of fraud (affidavits are not evidence-but that is a discussion in itself), the expert was sitting in a hotel in sleepy little Gettysburg, testifying about all this important information instead of testifying in a court of law.  Why is that?

Do you think that if any of the claims the expert made could be confirmed, that Billy "investigate the investigators" Barr wouldn't have dragged that information into court?

Yet there were trump supporters showing up at the Convention Center in Philadelphia, where they were counting mail in ballots, who came from Virginia, with handguns and assault weapons.  And you know what they had in their hummer?

https://coalregioncanary.com/2020/11/26 … ettysburg/

Here are some facts:  https://www.inquirer.com/politics/elect … 01129.html   and it includes some places trump did better.  The 99.4% doesn't have to be statistically possible because the whole thing is a lie.

Regarding your call for jail time- if they could have proven any allegation against Hillary, they would have done their damnedest to convict her.  Same with Biden.  Republicans were in charge and Republicans only obstruct justice for Republicans.  But, just like now, regarding the howling about crimes (never committed), all the trials are heard only in the court of public opinion using evidence which the opposition can't cross examine since it doesn't exist.  But the court of public opinion is all that is need because the facts and the law aren't relevant.  It is all about the smear.

rfordphotos wrote:
also---- they are admissions of guilt---something Trump does not do.

No. They can certainly be taken that way, but they are not absolute an admission of guilt.  Certainly an innocent man who has neither been convicted, tried, or even charged, should have no reason to accept a pardon.  Seeking a pardon does imply there is a reasonable perception that a person thinks they can be charged and convicted.

"In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.
But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.
Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … story.html

Baanthai wrote:

You’re supposed to just drink the Trump Kool-Aid, not take a bath in it! 😆

Oh man, this is the best response I've read all day! 🤣👍