Trump riot developments
- Thread starter cosmickid
- Start date
Trump is so smart that, six weeks before the election, he said he wouldn't lose unless the Democrats cheated.
How did he know so far in advance that he was going to claim there was/would be/had been election fraud? He seems to know his own mind very well.
Again, as I've asked you previously, do you have the names of witnesses who actually saw these events happen?
Here's a hint: Those names are on the signature pages of the supporting affidavits and the statements the witnesses gave to the police, you do have copies of those documents, don't you?
No, according to the Shaman's atty, they had "mental health issues."
QAnon Shaman lawyer defends wild comments likening Trump to Hitler and calling own client brain damaged
Albert Watkins says that by using vulgar language he was able to obtain attention he wanted for his case
Reading is fundamental. Hoot was referring to the summer of love riotsNo, according to the Shaman's atty, they had "mental health issues."
QAnon Shaman lawyer defends wild comments likening Trump to Hitler and calling own client brain damaged
Albert Watkins says that by using vulgar language he was able to obtain attention he wanted for his casenews.yahoo.com
But these changes did go through the various state court systems, right? You don't have a problem with all those court rulings on election procedures, do you?
What? Just look at this guy -- just a tourist so happy to be strolling through the nation's Capitol:
"I still remember how deflating it was to learn that you can’t just go be a tourist in DC - to see Congress or the White House, you gotta wade through bums, flotsam, jetsam, protesters, potty-mouths, junkies."
This is not particularly conducive to the concept of this thread, and my post is a bit off topic as well. But the way you phrased this struck me as remarkably similar to the "points" Caitlyn Jenner made in a disastrous interview she gave to Hannity when she exposed herself as being the most detached from reality we've seen in a politician since Trump was filmed eating KFC with a knife and fork...
The setting was inside her private airplane hangar in Malibu. Hannity asked her something to the effect of Why she was running, and she proceeded to detail her conversation with one of her neighbors/friends whose hangar adjoined hers. She informed us that her friend said he was going to fly away to somewhere like Arizona because he couldn't handle how bad things had gotten in CA. (Apparently her friend doesn't realize that the Californians fleeing to AZ are a huge reason the Grand Canyon State is moving from Red to purple)...
From that display of a bizarre lack of self-awareness Caitlyn had nowhere to go but further down, and she proceeded to do so. On one occasion she commented on how disgusting it was to observe all the homeless people whenever she traveled to her airplane hangar. In fact, that was the exact portion of the interview that your comment reminded me of. Like I said slightly off-topic. But bizarre nevertheless... Made me wonder if you had seen her interview?
Caitlyn Jenner, speaking from her plane hangar, says friends are fleeing California because of homeless people - The Boston Globe
As she kicks off her campaign to unseat Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in a recall election, Jenner, 71, has leaned heavily into conservative talking points, like bashing California’s state government over its policies on homelessness.www.bostonglobe.com
Bruce did fine. I'm sure the wuss host is more your cup of tea.
You wrote, "were not allowed to follow."
OK, now. You must be braver than that.
Please explain why they weren't. I don't think you know enough about the appellate process in those 8-10 states to dazzle us, but go ahead. My popcorn will take 2-3 minutes, so you've got plenty of time to be as brilliant as you can be.
When higher courts won't hear the appeal, the appeals process isn't being followed.
Sorry - I should have dumbed it down for you.
That's hilarious. Keep going with your thoughts. I've got time to read them.
Oh, and which state(s) did these terrible things happen in, please? You do know, don't you?
I believe merely what is KNOWN to be true.
That high-ranking members of the Trump campaign communicated directly, on multiple occasions, with shady Russians who claimed to have dirt on HRC, that were intent on harming her prospects by waging a disinformation campaign on American social media, and that had at least some cybercriminal capabilities/expertise.
That the Trump campaign was aware of such efforts, were not bothered by it at least to the extent to say "stop it", and were also not excited enough by it to focus DJT's direct attention to it, other than general awareness.
That the Trump campaign either actively or passively abetted (we don't know which, since no money trail was followed) those Russian disinformation efforts.
Was it ground for impeachment of DJT? probably not. Maybe it was just sloppy and having bltantly corrupt high-ranking members of the Trump campaign in place. Was it shady as hell? Certainly.
Of course I know. But, since you don't seem to know, here are some cases in litigation or where appeals were not heard, such as Pennsylvania or the Texas suit that challeged other states' violation of their own election laws.
Election Litigation - SCOTUSblog
Welcome to the 2020 Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project of Election Law at Ohio State and SCOTUSblog. During the 2020 election season, we will provide up-to-date information on major election law cases as they make their way through every level of the court system. Our goal is to serve as a
You should have dumbed it down for him? You are too funny, Danny.
This is not breaking news for anyone but you, but losing parties in civil litigation generally don't have an automatic right of appeal.
One of Team Trump's frivolous post-election actions actually did make it to a federal appeals court (the 3rd Circuit). In rejecting Trump's attempt to block Biden from being declared the winner in Pennsylvania, the court wrote: "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." Btw, the opinion was written by Judge Bibas, who was nominated for the 3rd Circuit by . .. [wait for it] . . . your favorite, about-to-be-indicted, former president.
Evidently you didn't read the link to the statistics I provided. I'm not surprised - you don't like to get into actual details.
Or else you just want to ignore actual facts. I'm guessin both.
I guess just believing what you hear on MSNBC and CNN count as expert opinion, which is why you're so often out to lunch.
Do you believe Trump colluded with the Russians?
It was not determined to be a "conspiracy".
Collusion is not a legal term and has no meaning, other than the common understanding of two or more parties working together in some fashion, which indeed did happen. But that is no more a crime than being stupid is a crime. Many here should be thankful...
There you go again, Danny, trying to change the subject when you've lost an argument - - and looked foolish to boot.
We were talking about 2020 post-election litigation. You clearly know nothing about appellate litigation and I tried to help you out. I also cited a federal appeals court opinion that speaks directly to the bullshit that Trump and his lackeys have been spewing. What are you relying on? Your brilliance?😜
I showed you all the litigation and provided the proof you asked about whether I knew any of the cases.
I provided a link so you could see for yourself the fact that appeals were denied by higher courts.
I don't know what more you need. I realize you got embarrassed by my answering your question, so you have to lash out. I get it - I deal with my grandchild a lot and see the temper tantrums that are thrown when things don't go her way - much like you do when you lose an argument.
My worry is the self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at this board as a non-scientific sample of conservatives. What do you see? You see a few true believer crazy nuts. You see a few people most would normally call level-headed standard conservatives who nonetheless parrot some of the Steal nonsense. And you see a decent number of conservatives calling them out. You also see a bunch of conservatives avoiding it altogether, although I suspect they largely agree with the ones who explicitly say it's nonsense.
Supposedly, that's what we have in Congress, too. Most of the people who don't call it out nonetheless believe it's nonsense, according to reports.
So why do they stay silent? The only explanation is they think the political reality among the unwashed masses is very different, so that showing some intelligence and sensibility would be a political handicap. You have repeatedly said you don't think that's true, that the nuts are a vocal minority. I hope you are right. If you are not right, we are already screwed.
But even if you are right, doesn't it seem like the cowardice shown by those who won't speak up only makes it more likely that you will eventually be wrong? In other words, I'm less worried about the possibility that a majority of conservatives are Trump cultists. I'm more worried about how much the cult will grow if the rest of the conservatives are paying lip service to it or otherwise too scared to fight against it.
Whether it’s lip service or cowardice is immaterial. There’s no benefit to calling it out. One could say it’s the right to do; but that doesn’t inure to the benefit of the party as a whole. The reality is that the republican family needs all hands on deck; even the crazy uncles and inbred cousins. As the younger generations supplant the older and the demographics continue to change the challenge grows greater for repubs to win the presidency. Opinions differ but I think biden and Harris were a terrible ticket and they won by as many as ten mil votes or whatever. Repubs don’t have the luxury of calling anyone out and risking losing them (I.e having them stay home).
Lastly remember “the cult” is tethered to a fat guy in his mid 70s awaiting indictment. The shelf life of the cult is nearing its expiration
Last edited:
Against the ousted gov. Nutty. Cities proper are far left progressive blue (new mayor is a defund the police progressive) and the suburbs and rural are deep red. Had claire from 07-19 then hawley. Crazy state
I think the pre-election Democratic efforts were all deliberately aimed at making election misconduct easier to do and harder to detect. I think the tabulations in important cities in important states had some common statistical anomalies. I think election and tabulating misconduct is and was common and more common in some places than others. i think these points are undeniable. I also think Trump’s post election shenanigans were seriously ill-advised. Finally I have a hard time believing January 6 to be an armed insurrection when there are zero indictments or charges reflecting that.
I don’t know where this puts me on the “bullshit sandwich” scale, but I don‘t care.
Last edited:
Many here, and goat is among those, believe in a duty to disavow. They take silence as substance. The new buzz phrase is “silence is violence“. I don’t buy any of that. People have no obligation to defend silence.
Your impression of the motivations of efforts to expand people's options to vote is quite deniable.
So are all his other points ("I think this, I think that," etc.).
Dozens of Trump's post-election legal challenges were tossed by the courts. His own AG concluded that there was no widespread fraud that affected the election outcome. Numerous recounts and audits turned up nothing. Yet the Trumpers still cling to the insane and baseless narrative that there was widespread fraud and/or the election was stolen. Amazing.
I'll bet he thinks that what is happening in Maricopa County is a real election audit, and therefore invaluable to ensure confidence in the voting process.
I think Republicans refused to let the vote counting process start early because they felt it helped Trump claim there were fraudulent votes because many people seem to not grasp the process. Republicans wanted mail-in votes to be counted late so Trump could pull the "i was winning, but dems dumped thousands of illegal votes".
Oh look, these vote are counted late...it's fraud..oh look, i was winning but now i'm losing, it's fraud.
No, counting wasn't allowed to start early so it took time to count the votes and the results get reported in batches by county. All pretty normal procedure, which is why all the lawsuits got thrown out. Outside of a few dead trumpers finding a way to vote, there is yet to be any proof of massive amounts of fraud.
Yeah. Neat drive from Momtrose to Telluride. Best Mexican Resturant in western Co is on the way.
I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about other than finding yet another way to say “Trump sucks”.
