HuMcK said:

---

They will never accept the premise that Trump's actions are objectively worse than anything his opponents have done. They lie to themselves and cope by dismissing truthful allegations as "hoaxes", or just political prosecutions, so they can absolve themselves for supporting a monster.

---

It's ironic that you think Trump is a monster while you simultaneously tolerate woke leftists, limousine neoliberals and banks/corporation controlled politics.

Its like you don't really understand the concept of wolves in sheep's clothing. For whatever reason you don't understand that democrats are the party of the rich while they pretend to be the party of the poor and working class.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Allowed himself? You are accepting beyond specious Democrat arguments because you do not like him.

He lost a close election that roughly 2/3rd of the public thinks was affected by fraud. Nothing wrong with going down swinging and contesting outcomes to the very end.

The GA case in particular is shameless Democrat abuse of power, literally throwing a wild-ass allegation into the blender and seeing what might come of it. Not going to turn out like you think.

---

Yes, allowed himself. His White House Counsel, DOJ and even his Daughter told him there was no evidence of fraud, yet he latched on to Eastman, Powell and Guiliani pushing ideas that exposed him and the Presidency to risk. That was Trump allowing himself to be put in this position.
BS. Evidence of fraud was right before our eyes, on TV. He latched on to a legal argument that he had a pathway to victory, and he took it.

Trump and his surrogates recruiting alternate electors and asking Pence to reject the ones the State's sent, was Trump allowing himself to be in this position.
Alternate electors is not illegal. Democrats have done it themselves before. There was a historical precedent that VP rejection of EVs could be done. Were that not so, Congress would not have closed the loophole in an ensuing budget compromise.

There are ways of challenging without doing a blood and guts speech on Jan 6th and telling the crowd to go to Congress. That was Trump allowing himself to be at risk.
You obviously did not hear the speech. He told the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard." No piece of the insurrection lie is more risible than the allegation that he incited a riot. Such is not lacking evidence, it stands in stark contrast to the evidence.

These are not made-up media Democratic lies, they are documentable (many times on TV, recorded or on Twitter) Trump actions that allowed himself and the Executive Branch to be at risk. How long did he wait to make a statement to stand down and go home?? He sat there and smiled, according to his Staff. Congress is being overrun and the President won't tell them to stop. Yeah, that's your guy.
LOL none of that "documentable" stuff is criminal. Not. One.

So, either you think that blowing up the US system of elections is worth it or not. Because that is exactly what Trump tried to do, which again is documented by his own Staff and VP. None of this is drinking the media cool-aid, it is documented and many of us watched with our own eyes.
Trump didn't blow up the election system. Democrats did. Completely ignoring state constitutional laws, massive expansion of mail-in voting, etc...... Dems used Covid to drastically reform the way we vote. And if you think there wasn't enough fraud to cover a few tens of thousands of votes in a handful of states you are in LALA land. There's always fraud. In GA where 5m people voted, no question the number of questionable ballots exceeded the 11k vote margin. It's a mathematical certainty. Just like the hanging chads in FL in 2000.

---

You are buying into the Democrat narrative because you think it will help defeat a Republican you don't like.
Wake up.,

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Allowed himself? You are accepting beyond specious Democrat arguments because you do not like him.

He lost a close election that roughly 2/3rd of the public thinks was affected by fraud. Nothing wrong with going down swinging and contesting outcomes to the very end.

The GA case in particular is shameless Democrat abuse of power, literally throwing a wild-ass allegation into the blender and seeing what might come of it. Not going to turn out like you think.

---

Yes, allowed himself. His White House Counsel, DOJ and even his Daughter told him there was no evidence of fraud, yet he latched on to Eastman, Powell and Guiliani pushing ideas that exposed him and the Presidency to risk. That was Trump allowing himself to be put in this position.
BS. Evidence of fraud was right before our eyes, on TV. He latched on to a legal argument that he had a pathway to victory, and he took it.

Trump and his surrogates recruiting alternate electors and asking Pence to reject the ones the State's sent, was Trump allowing himself to be in this position.
Alternate electors is not illegal. Democrats have done it themselves before. There was a historical precedent that VP rejection of EVs could be done. Were that not so, Congress would not have closed the loophole in an ensuing budget compromise.

There are ways of challenging without doing a blood and guts speech on Jan 6th and telling the crowd to go to Congress. That was Trump allowing himself to be at risk.
You obviously did not hear the speech. He told the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard." No piece of the insurrection lie is more risible than the allegation that he incited a riot. Such is not lacking evidence, it stands in stark contrast to the evidence.

These are not made-up media Democratic lies, they are documentable (many times on TV, recorded or on Twitter) Trump actions that allowed himself and the Executive Branch to be at risk. How long did he wait to make a statement to stand down and go home?? He sat there and smiled, according to his Staff. Congress is being overrun and the President won't tell them to stop. Yeah, that's your guy.
LOL none of that "documentable" stuff is criminal. Not. One.

So, either you think that blowing up the US system of elections is worth it or not. Because that is exactly what Trump tried to do, which again is documented by his own Staff and VP. None of this is drinking the media cool-aid, it is documented and many of us watched with our own eyes.
Trump didn't blow up the election system. Democrats did. Completely ignoring state constitutional laws, massive expansion of mail-in voting, etc...... Dems used Covid to drastically reform the way we vote. And if you think there wasn't enough fraud to cover a few tens of thousands of votes in a handful of states you are in LALA land. There's always fraud. In GA where 5m people voted, no question the number of questionable ballots exceeded the 11k vote margin. It's a mathematical certainty. Just like the hanging chads in FL in 2000.

---

You are buying into the Democrat narrative because you think it will help defeat a Republican you don't like.
Wake up.,

---

Still zero evidence of fraud. Every court (including many Trump appointees) have rejected the claims, as have Trump-supporting auditors. Vast majority of Trump's own advisors and family told him there was no fraud. Laura Ingraham, of all people, the other night said she's been begging Trump folks for years for evidence of fraud and still has seen none.

Zero historical precedent for what Trump wanted Pence to do. Zero. The legislation was to ensure it was never even tried. It was just another way to slap Trump. Eastman made it up. Every other Trump legal advisor, and countless Fed Society folks laughed at it.

The electors strategy was boneheaded and arguably illegal. There was no precedent for it. JFK's Hawaiian minions were the closest, but still nothing like Trump.

You and I have gone back and forth on J6, but you have to admit there was a lot more to it than the words you cite. Trump called out Pence repeatedly on twitter and in speeches, much of it as he knew the crowd was getting restless. He was slow (to be kind) to react the riots, and his own Secret Service (who supported him to the end) testified when he first it had gotten out of hand, he wanted to go in person to support the rioters. Finally, the rioters were only there b/c of Trump's lies about Dominion and mass fraud. Now these folks rot in jail. I continue to argue Trump's actions that day were not criminal, but they were deplorable. He led his most ardent supporters to ruin.

You really have to research GA. Every single one of Trump's fraud claims was investigated and refuted. Courts, recounts, audits, sample audits. Mathematical certainty? 100% no. Trump could just have easily lost votes. In our system, one has to prove fraud through the legal process. General statements that "of course there was fraud" don't fly.

Yes, states did some questionable things during COVID. But, again, in our system, you challenge those through courts. Trump lost every single case, many of them because his lawyers flat lied. I have read every charge against Trump. I encourage you to do the same. To this point, none are based on his state law challenges to pre-election process changes.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Allowed himself? You are accepting beyond specious Democrat arguments because you do not like him.

He lost a close election that roughly 2/3rd of the public thinks was affected by fraud. Nothing wrong with going down swinging and contesting outcomes to the very end.

The GA case in particular is shameless Democrat abuse of power, literally throwing a wild-ass allegation into the blender and seeing what might come of it. Not going to turn out like you think.

---

Yes, allowed himself. His White House Counsel, DOJ and even his Daughter told him there was no evidence of fraud, yet he latched on to Eastman, Powell and Guiliani pushing ideas that exposed him and the Presidency to risk. That was Trump allowing himself to be put in this position.
BS. Evidence of fraud was right before our eyes, on TV. He latched on to a legal argument that he had a pathway to victory, and he took it.

Trump and his surrogates recruiting alternate electors and asking Pence to reject the ones the State's sent, was Trump allowing himself to be in this position.
Alternate electors is not illegal. Democrats have done it themselves before. There was a historical precedent that VP rejection of EVs could be done. Were that not so, Congress would not have closed the loophole in an ensuing budget compromise.

There are ways of challenging without doing a blood and guts speech on Jan 6th and telling the crowd to go to Congress. That was Trump allowing himself to be at risk.
You obviously did not hear the speech. He told the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard." No piece of the insurrection lie is more risible than the allegation that he incited a riot. Such is not lacking evidence, it stands in stark contrast to the evidence.

These are not made-up media Democratic lies, they are documentable (many times on TV, recorded or on Twitter) Trump actions that allowed himself and the Executive Branch to be at risk. How long did he wait to make a statement to stand down and go home?? He sat there and smiled, according to his Staff. Congress is being overrun and the President won't tell them to stop. Yeah, that's your guy.
LOL none of that "documentable" stuff is criminal. Not. One.

So, either you think that blowing up the US system of elections is worth it or not. Because that is exactly what Trump tried to do, which again is documented by his own Staff and VP. None of this is drinking the media cool-aid, it is documented and many of us watched with our own eyes.
Trump didn't blow up the election system. Democrats did. Completely ignoring state constitutional laws, massive expansion of mail-in voting, etc...... Dems used Covid to drastically reform the way we vote. And if you think there wasn't enough fraud to cover a few tens of thousands of votes in a handful of states you are in LALA land. There's always fraud. In GA where 5m people voted, no question the number of questionable ballots exceeded the 11k vote margin. It's a mathematical certainty. Just like the hanging chads in FL in 2000.

---

You are buying into the Democrat narrative because you think it will help defeat a Republican you don't like.
Wake up.,

---

No, Democrats have nothing to do with it. It is Pence and these that appeared before the Grand Jury:

Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff
Marc Short, former chief of staff to Pence,
Greg Jacob, former aide to Pence (Short and Jacob, both members of Pence's inner circle, were present in key meetings in the lead-up to the January 6 riot that were part of a pressure campaign to convince Pence to disrupt Congress' certification of Biden's electoral win.)
Dan Scavino, fOrmer White House deputy chief of staff
Pat Cipollone, Former Trump White House counsel
Patrick Philbin, Cipollone's deputy, also testified twice
Stephen Miller, a former White House speechwriter and senior adviser to Trump
Ken Cuccinelli, Former Department of Homeland Security official
John Ratcliffe, former Director of National Intelligence
Newt Gingrich
Nick Luna, Former White House aide
John McEntee, Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office and an aide to the former president
Beau Harrison, Aide to Trump.
William Russell, a former White House special assistant and deputy director of presidential advance
Michael McDonald, Chairman of the Nevada Republican Party . (McDonald was given limited immunity to testify.)
Jim DeGraffenreid, Nevada GOP official and Trump elector, was also given limited immunity to testify.
G. Michael Brown, Trump campaign election day operations official
Ali Alexander, Leader of the "Stop the Steal" group
Secret Service agents

These are Republicans, many on Trump's staff. This was not a behind closed door Democratic indictment. A Grand Jury indicted based on what the Republicans told them, not some DC Democrats. There is enough here to go to trial and see what happened. Any objective person would come away that something was not right between the election in January and the riot on January 6th and Trump was front and center. As for it being legal, HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOLD HIM IT WASN'T. PENCES COUNSEL TOLD HIM IT WASN'T LEGAL. You keep acting like it is commonly known this tact is legal, it is not. Only Eastman, Powell and Guliani said it was and they are on trial!

So, no I am not falling for Democratic Narrative because I dislike Trump. Actually the evidence looks more like you and many others on this site are willing to ignore what happened because you do like Trump.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Allowed himself? You are accepting beyond specious Democrat arguments because you do not like him.

He lost a close election that roughly 2/3rd of the public thinks was affected by fraud. Nothing wrong with going down swinging and contesting outcomes to the very end.

The GA case in particular is shameless Democrat abuse of power, literally throwing a wild-ass allegation into the blender and seeing what might come of it. Not going to turn out like you think.

---

Yes, allowed himself. His White House Counsel, DOJ and even his Daughter told him there was no evidence of fraud, yet he latched on to Eastman, Powell and Guiliani pushing ideas that exposed him and the Presidency to risk. That was Trump allowing himself to be put in this position.
BS. Evidence of fraud was right before our eyes, on TV. He latched on to a legal argument that he had a pathway to victory, and he took it.

Trump and his surrogates recruiting alternate electors and asking Pence to reject the ones the State's sent, was Trump allowing himself to be in this position.
Alternate electors is not illegal. Democrats have done it themselves before. There was a historical precedent that VP rejection of EVs could be done. Were that not so, Congress would not have closed the loophole in an ensuing budget compromise.

There are ways of challenging without doing a blood and guts speech on Jan 6th and telling the crowd to go to Congress. That was Trump allowing himself to be at risk.
You obviously did not hear the speech. He told the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard." No piece of the insurrection lie is more risible than the allegation that he incited a riot. Such is not lacking evidence, it stands in stark contrast to the evidence.

These are not made-up media Democratic lies, they are documentable (many times on TV, recorded or on Twitter) Trump actions that allowed himself and the Executive Branch to be at risk. How long did he wait to make a statement to stand down and go home?? He sat there and smiled, according to his Staff. Congress is being overrun and the President won't tell them to stop. Yeah, that's your guy.
LOL none of that "documentable" stuff is criminal. Not. One.

So, either you think that blowing up the US system of elections is worth it or not. Because that is exactly what Trump tried to do, which again is documented by his own Staff and VP. None of this is drinking the media cool-aid, it is documented and many of us watched with our own eyes.
Trump didn't blow up the election system. Democrats did. Completely ignoring state constitutional laws, massive expansion of mail-in voting, etc...... Dems used Covid to drastically reform the way we vote. And if you think there wasn't enough fraud to cover a few tens of thousands of votes in a handful of states you are in LALA land. There's always fraud. In GA where 5m people voted, no question the number of questionable ballots exceeded the 11k vote margin. It's a mathematical certainty. Just like the hanging chads in FL in 2000.

---

You are buying into the Democrat narrative because you think it will help defeat a Republican you don't like.
Wake up.,

---

No, Democrats have nothing to do with it. It is Pence and these that appeared before the Grand Jury:

Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff
Marc Short, former chief of staff to Pence,
Greg Jacob, former aide to Pence (Short and Jacob, both members of Pence's inner circle, were present in key meetings in the lead-up to the January 6 riot that were part of a pressure campaign to convince Pence to disrupt Congress' certification of Biden's electoral win.)
Dan Scavino, fOrmer White House deputy chief of staff
Pat Cipollone, Former Trump White House counsel
Patrick Philbin, Cipollone's deputy, also testified twice
Stephen Miller, a former White House speechwriter and senior adviser to Trump
Ken Cuccinelli, Former Department of Homeland Security official
John Ratcliffe, former Director of National Intelligence
Newt Gingrich
Nick Luna, Former White House aide
John McEntee, Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office and an aide to the former president
Beau Harrison, Aide to Trump.
William Russell, a former White House special assistant and deputy director of presidential advance
Michael McDonald, Chairman of the Nevada Republican Party . (McDonald was given limited immunity to testify.)
Jim DeGraffenreid, Nevada GOP official and Trump elector, was also given limited immunity to testify.
G. Michael Brown, Trump campaign election day operations official
Ali Alexander, Leader of the "Stop the Steal" group
Secret Service agents

These are Republicans, many on Trump's staff. This was not a behind closed door Democratic indictment. A Grand Jury indicted based on what the Republicans told them, not some DC Democrats. There is enough here to go to trial and see what happened. Any objective person would come away that something was not right between the election in January and the riot on January 6th and Trump was front and center. As for it being legal, HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOLD HIM IT WASN'T. PENCES COUNSEL TOLD HIM IT WASN'T LEGAL. You keep acting like it is commonly known this tact is legal, it is not. Only Eastman, Powell and Guliani said it was and they are on trial!

So, no I am not falling for Democratic Narrative because I dislike Trump. Actually the evidence looks more like you and many others on this site are willing to ignore what happened because you do like Trump.

---

You have been hoodwinked by an indictment that begs a complex question to impute conspiracy for insurrection just because the Trump campaign challenged an election.

Link is the offending phone call in the GA case. Nobody asks anybody to steal an election. Trump lays out many details of potential issues which far exceed the vote margin. He was assured that GA checked every problem and found nothing, but was offered no details, So he pressed hard for more inspections, offering VERY specific allegations of problems an exact vote totals for each.

Nowhere. Nowhere was anyone asked to do anything unprofessional. Just a campaign fighting hard to rectify perceived problems that exceeded the margin of victory/loss. To impute a crime and conspiracy is outrageous. Literally, the comments alleged against Trump that set off the firestorm….did not occur.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

Willis is the threat to constitutional order, not Trump.

My eyes Trump challenge a crowd and that crowd stormed the capitol

Waco1947 said:

---

My eyes Trump challenge a crowd and that crowd stormed the capitol

---

Did he tell them to storm the capitol?

He called them together on j6 and clearly sent them despite your blind eyesight now hat eyes saw.

Waco1947 said:

---

He called them together on j6 and clearly sent them despite your blind eyesight now hat eyes saw.

---

Please cite where he told them to storm the Capital.

The biggest incitor was FBI plant Ray Epps.