leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 22, 2020 Posted November 22, 2020 1 minute ago, shoshin said: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-powell/trump-campaign-says-sidney-powell-not-a-member-of-legal-team-idUSKBN2820UB Now that we're past the "I don't believe you" part of this, care to respond to the clown car show Trump's "vaunted" legal team is putting on? Yes, I’ll be glad to. As I stated, the impression given was that Sidney Powell was a part of Trump’s legal team. As I think back, I cannot recall a time when I ever heard that she was on his team either directly from her or DJT. When I performed the google search, there were multiple pages of Sidney Powell and “Trumps legal team” mostly with derogatory headlines attached. So, now my question—was she ever on his legal team to begin with? Has she been terminated from the team? If Sidney Powell was on the team, and has now been terminated, things on Team Trump appear dark. As for the Trust Tree, given our earlier interaction and lack of news coverage when I looked on google, I was concerned.
TBBills Posted November 22, 2020 Posted November 22, 2020 Things on the Trump team have looked dark since Nov 5th...
shoshin Posted November 22, 2020 Posted November 22, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yes, I’ll be glad to. As I stated, the impression given was that Sidney Powell was a part of Trump’s legal team. As I think back, I cannot recall a time when I ever heard that she was on his team either directly from her or DJT. When I performed the google search, there were multiple pages of Sidney Powell and “Trumps legal team” mostly with derogatory headlines attached. So, now my question—was she ever on his legal team to begin with? Has she been terminated from the team? If Sidney Powell was on the team, and has now been terminated, things on Team Trump appear dark. As for the Trust Tree, given our earlier interaction and lack of news coverage when I looked on google, I was concerned. She was not only in the press conference on Wednesday, she was featured! It's a clown car--she couldn't even outlast Scaramucci. And it's not like anyone that is still on the Trump team (??) at the press conference got up and said, "Hey who's this lady and how'd she get on stage? Her theories are nuts." Edited November 22, 2020 by shoshin
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 16 minutes ago, shoshin said: She was not only in the press conference on Wednesday, she was featured! It's a clown car--she couldn't even outlast Scaramucci. And it's not like anyone that is still on the Trump team (??) at the press conference got up and said, "Hey who's this lady and how'd she get on stage? Her theories are nuts." I can see that perspective. However, I’m also wondering about the reporting featuring SP as part of his legal team. Were they lazy, disinterested, sloppy or what? Even now, you’ve indicated she could not outlast Scarmucci. But, she apparently never has the opportunity to. Here’s where I’m at. Nothing changes for me in the big picture. I’m reading some coverage at breitbart, the reporting is that some of her claims exceeded the ability to be proven in court. I’ve come this far, I’ll see it through with President Trump. I was at 98-2 that Biden is president on 1/21 post election, 50/50 before election, and now I’m at 99/1. Stepping sideways for a bit, but I have a question for you. Chuck Schumer said somewhere along the line that Trump was dumb for taking on the intelligence community. He said the IC “has six ways from Sunday” to bring you down. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community?amp What do you think he meant by that?
GaryPinC Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 17 minutes ago, SoTier said: Maybe Rudy knew better thirty years ago but I'm not sure he knows anything these days that isn't filtered through his tin-foil hat in the voice of Covid Donnie. Well, you don't have to be a lawyer to appreciate the role of the supreme court. They are not going to be able to present witnesses in their case to the SC. That is not the role of the SC. I think Rudy's just being loyal to Trump. Trump would have to be oblivious and that's a real possibility.
shoshin Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 40 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Chuck Schumer said somewhere along the line that Trump was dumb for taking on the intelligence community. He said the IC “has six ways from Sunday” to bring you down. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community?amp What do you think he meant by that? I loathe Schumer and have no idea what he meant. Spitballing about it, I'd guess that he meant to imply they have dirt on Trump. He's full of s$%^ so who knows. 1
WideNine Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, JaCrispy said: I don’t have anything specific, but I do listen to Jimmy Dore, Tim Pool, Joe Rogan, and Glen Beck, to name a few...some are liberal, some moderate, and some conservative...I also go back and forth CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, even though I can’t stand any of them- it’s more of a forced feeding...lol With regards to your final question, I don’t know if there is something concrete there...But, I still lean in the direction that there could be something there, but it’s more of a hunch, based on how Democrats have acted over the last 4 years...and here is why... 1. Everyone mocked Trump when he said people were spying on his campaign...but he turned out to be right. The FBI sought and got a warrant to investigate a member of Trump’s campaign- which gave them access to conversations with Trump. A couple things here. First, if as many Russian or foreign intelligence assets were circling around the Biden campaign as they were Trump's 2016 campaign I would sure as hell hope our intelligence agencies would be on top of that and keeping a close watch. It's their job. Secondly, it’s clear the Justice Department was investigating possible ties between Russia and Trump campaign officials. The question is whether the investigation ever crossed a line into spying on the campaign itself — that was debunked in the Trump-Friendly DOJ Inspector General Report on CrossFire Hurricane, Finally, we found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked any CHSs or UCEs to join the Trump campaign, sent any CHSs or UCEs to campaign offices or to campaign events to collect information for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. F. Compliance with FBI Policies. We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened before any CHSs or UCEs were tasked to interact with any members of the Trump campaign. Once the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened, the use of CHSs and UCEs was authorized under the AG Guidelines and the DIOG, which permit use of "all lawful investigative methods in the conduct of a Full Investigation" including specifically "CHS use and recruitment," "consensual monitoring of communications," and "Undercover Operations. "524 We further concluded that the use of CHSs and UCEs in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation complied with the DIOG's requirement that "investigative activities be conducted for an authorized purpose. "527 As discussed previously, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened for an authorized purpose-which means "to detect, obtain information about, or prevent or protect against federal crimes or threats to the national security or to collect foreign intelligence. We found that the Crossfire Hurricane team made no use of any information collected from the high-level Trump campaign official, because the team determined that none of the information gathered was "germane" to the allegations under investigation. We also looked for, but did not find, documentary evidence that investigative activities involving CHSs and UCEs during Crossfire Hurricane were undertaken for political purposes, rather than investigative objectives. Similarly, none of the witnesses provided any such information to us. Although no existing laws were broken, the IG did make multiple suggestions for administrative and protocol corrective actions to tighten oversight and future FISA application processes. Source: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf 2. Everyone mocked Trump when he said the Russia collusion claim was a hoax. Trump turned out to be right again...According to special prosecutor Muller, no evidence could be found connecting Trump to Russia. And an FBI attorney has even plead guilty to altering a CIA email, in order to help secure the necessary warrants. Like a lot of things much depends on how one defines collusion particularly in partisan politics: I personally don't see cloak and dagger, but I see Donald Trump a man who will forward his interests (financial, or political) via any means regardless of laws and norms. This behavior is corroborated by those who have worked closely with him in his administration. The DEM view of much redacted Mueller report: (U) The Committee's bipartisan Report found that Russia's goal in its unprecedented hack-and-leak operation against the United States in 2016, among other motives, was to assist the Trump Campaign. Candidate Trump and his Campaign responded to that threat by embracing, encouraging, and exploiting the Russian effort. Trump solicited inside information in advance of WikiLeaks's· expected releases of stolen information, even after public reports widely attributed the activity to Russia, so as to maximize his electoral benefit. The Campaign crafted a strategy around these anticipated releases to amplify the dissemination and promotion of the stolen documents. Even after the US. government formally announced the hack-and-leak campaign as a Russian government effort, Trump's embrace of the stolen documents and his efforts to minimize the attribution to Russia only continued. The Committee's Report clearly shows that Trump and his Campaign were not mere bystanders in this attack - they were active participants. They coordinated their activities with the releases of the hacked Russian data, magnified the effects of a known Russian campaign, and welcomed the mutual benefit from the Russian activity. (U) Additionally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that, at the June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, senior members of the Campaign sought, explicitly, to receive derogatory information for electoral benefit from a Russian lawyer known to have ties to the Russian government, with the understanding that the information was part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Prior to and during that meeting, members of the Trump Campaign's leadership clearly stated their desire to receive the promised derogatory Russian information, and ultimately they also clearly expressed their displeasure that the Russian information that was presented was not sufficiently damaging. That the Campaign leadership's desire to coordinate with Russia failed in this particular instance is hardly exculpatory; instead, it is emblematic of the leadership's mindset, intent and willingness. to work with Russia in hopes of influencing the U.S. election to their benefit. The Committee's investigation found that the Russian lawyer that the Campaign leadership met with in Trump Tower, and one of her colleagues who also participated in the meeting, both have significant and concerning ties to Russian intelligence. (U) Trump's Russia-friendly statements and policies during the Campaign did not occur in isolation. The Committee's bipartisan Report shows that, during the campaign, Donald ' Trump and the Trump Organization were pursuing a business deal in Russia. This is a topic about which the Campaign and its associates misled the public and Congress. The Committee's Report shows that Trump's outreach to the Kremlin began early and that during the Republican ' ' primary campaign, around the time that Trump authorized pursuit of the Russia deal, Trump asked for an in-person meeting with Putin. That request was relayed to the Kremlin. The Committee's Report shows that, during the campaign; Trump was kept up-to-date on the .progress of the Russia deal and made positive public comments about Putin, in connection with the campaign, while deal negotiations were ongoing. The GOP view: After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion. Source: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf Merriam Webster: Definition of collusion : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose 3. Over the summer I thought it odd when Democrats referenced that “at all costs” they would not allow Trump win...I remember telling a friend how odd it sounded, on its surface, considering they were trying to remove him from office all throughout his presidency with, what appeared to be flimsy arguments at best imo. I would contend that not just DEMs were thinking Trump needed to go at all costs, but many Moderates and Independents and Republicans too felt that he was a clear danger to our Democracy with autocratic and fascist tendencies... to the tune of 79,658,000 votes. Some irrationally feared he would try to subvert our DOJ into his personal law firm, or attack our democratic election process, or try to rig the election to disenfranchise millions by usurping the USPS and knee-capping its ability to deliver mail-in ballots. I know its far-fetched that any US President would do anything like that and the Senate would allow such abuses of Executive Branch authority, but some few million folks thought he may and they might. 4. Mail-in ballots...logically, I never understood the push for these...Democrats tried to use the Covid excuse, but Dr. Fauci had made clear it was ok to go to the polls. Yet Democrats continued to push them...so this was pretty curious until you start to think of potential motivations...They have always been against presenting ID when voting, yet nothing disenfranchises citizens more than if a fraudulent vote is able to be placed because ID was not required...To me, every American should want ID to be required to protect their vote- just like protecting your bank account against imposters trying to withdraw funds...if you’re against voter ID, it doesn’t really seem like you are genuinely against voter suppression or disenfranchisement imo...But then again, some democrats have said they are ok with non-citizens voting, which, I guess, starts to bring into focus why they would be against such regulations. This is patently false, as most states have used mail-in ballots normally and securely for decades. The GA Secretary of State and other GOP leaders warned Trump that his unproven rhetoric around mail-in ballots that are used in GOP-led swing states that have relied on mail-in ballots for years could backfire. It did, because they found a significant drop in GOP mail-in ballots in GA from the Primaries earlier this year. I live in a state that has used mail-in ballots for close to 20 years without a hitch. The last poll they took (prior to Trump poisoning the well) both Republicans and Democrats in the state were very satisfied with the system. How's this for a real GOP election fraud conspiracy theory around mail-in ballots: Say your the President, you and the GOP get together and looking at the data determine significantly more Democrats use mail-in votes. You pack the USPS board with GOP hard-liners (you've blocked all the Obama USPS board nominees the year prior and now can fill a majority 5 empty seats on the board). Trump oddly starts tweeting and complaining that mail-in voting is going to be rife with issues, there will be delays, and fraud. This is early in the year and he keeps trying to link mail delivery delays with fraud. The board forces out the remaining left-leaning Deputy Post Master General and they bypass the normal agency for hiring a new Postmaster General and install DeJoy a Trump mega-donor. DeJoy cuts overtime and extra routes and mail begins to pile up causing delivery delays around the nation. DeJoy then orders the removal of mail sorting machines 72% of which are in districts that Clinton won in 2016. Normally they are just mothballed, but USPS personnel say many were taken out and dismantled with parts thrown away. At this point Dems in Congress and concerned Federal judges smell a rat and step in. GOP state legislators and GOP lawsuits are filed in an attempt to harden mail-in ballot delivery cutoff dates, Dems file counter suits towards validating around postmark date owing to USPS delays. Under intense scrutiny USPS is forced to stop and reverse some of the changes. Fortunately the fraudulent GOP attempt to sabotage mail-in voting was largely avoided because it was brought to the light. Now, of course, all of this is circumstantial...which is why I’m not 100% convinced Trump has the goods...however, given the history, and their willingness to “put everything on the table”, and even how they’ve treated members of their own party, I put nothing passed the Democrats, and would not be surprised if something more sinister was at hand. I will probably wait to the final court rulings, just to be sure...unfortunately this is the place both parties have put the country in by not having uniform voting standards that protect against fraud...you’re just never secure in the outcome... Edited November 23, 2020 by WideNine 2
JaCrispy Posted November 23, 2020 Author Posted November 23, 2020 2 hours ago, WideNine said: Thanks for the retort...some things I disagree with, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an excellent post...that’s the type of discussion I come here for...👍 1
DrDawkinstein Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 On 11/21/2020 at 11:42 AM, JaCrispy said: In all honesty, if they have evidence, I would rather them not to say too much, publicly, and wait to present the details in court.... But they havent. Not once. They've had numerous opportunities in multiple courts across several states. They've had demands by judges to show them something. Anything! And every single time, they have nothing. I'm all for keeping elections secure and honest, and keeping a skeptical eye on them to make sure they are fair for everyone. Our systems definitely need to be improved (which plenty of Bills have been passed on, but have been blocked by Republicans in the Senate every time). But Trump and his team have nothing. There was no widespread fraud. They are just being sore losers and running out the clock. He knows this. Publicly, he/his team talk this big game, but privately he is already planning his life after office. It's done. Time to move onward and upward. 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 7 hours ago, JaCrispy said: Thanks for the retort...some things I disagree with, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an excellent post...that’s the type of discussion I come here for...👍 Unfortunately, the declaration about mail-in ballots lacks detail and assumes things are the way they always were (and interestingly, a quick google search of concerns about the legitimacy of mail-in voting yields hundreds of results from media sources far and wide, yet since 11/3 we've been told "OMG it's a perfect system!) . There is a difference between absentee ballots and mail-in ballots, and more importantly, there were "emergency measures' installed in many states under the guise of keeping people safe during the era of COVID. Here's a link that hilites some of the changes: https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_absentee/mail-in_voting_procedures_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020 In some cases, there are questions about the legalities of the changes, and by extension, whether or not the changes were appropriate. Here's a decent summary of the concern from one perspective: Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks (USA Today): "We have always had absentee voting, but it has always come with a tried and true validation process to ward off controversy. The system only works if we keep the same processes in place throughout. By changing the laws for how mail-in ballots are counted, states are paving the way for chaos and uncertainty in the weeks after Nov. 3. To change election laws this late in the game puts partisan legal teams in charge of determining the results of an election, rather than American voters." - "Don't change election laws this late: Anthony Fauci says in-person voting is safe with precautions. And widespread voting by mail could be dangerous to election integrity.," September 24, 2020. Another opinion piece on the sliding scale of authentication between in-person voting and voting by mail in an era where the rules changed very close to election: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/to_restore_election_integrity_end_mailin_vote_fraud.html The interesting part about all this is how quickly some folks want to move past these issues by removing DJTs lawful right to challenge the results as he sees fit. Very few on this site are suggesting that this ongoing matter be resolved for the greater good, the mantra seems to simply be "They need to stop". It really doesn't matter how many uncounted ballots are found, or irregularities pointed out--it's the very thought that a Presidential candidate other than the one they wanted chose to initiate the action. To draw a parallel, when our local DMV partially reopened after the lockdown, a friend of mine waited at the local office for 7 hours to complete a needed change. The government is not particularly adept at providing quality levels of service to begin with, and throwing a gigantic wrench in the monkeyworks just prior to the election certainly is problematic. As it relates to Dominion Software, issues have plagued the company for some time. Two former D Presidential nominees--one a long time front runner, expressed the very same types of concerns about Dominion in 2018: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/ar-BB1aZAYf The letter continued: “These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.” I inquired about this very Trump-esque concern raised by the other side less than 12 months ago, looking for dialogue and common ground. The response can best be summarized as no response at all. Here's the question--if former Presidential frontrunner Liz Warren was extremely concerned about it, as kinda-sort-maybe Presidential Candidate Amy Klobuchaer was very concerned about it---why the rush to close it out? Gore/Bush took 58 days to resolve, and Gore really never had a chance. It wasn't close. The established rules were followed, he took a flyer and lost. The world did not end, the sun rose and set, and we moved on. If, as they say, there is nothing to worry about, then by extension there is nothing to fear from seeing it through.
shoshin Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Unfortunately, the declaration about mail-in ballots lacks detail and assumes things are the way they always were (and interestingly, a quick google search of concerns about the legitimacy of mail-in voting yields hundreds of results from media sources far and wide, yet since 11/3 we've been told "OMG it's a perfect system!) . There is a difference between absentee ballots and mail-in ballots, and more importantly, there were "emergency measures' installed in many states under the guise of keeping people safe during the era of COVID. Here's a link that hilites some of the changes: https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_absentee/mail-in_voting_procedures_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020 In some cases, there are questions about the legalities of the changes, and by extension, whether or not the changes were appropriate. Here's a decent summary of the concern from one perspective: Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks (USA Today): "We have always had absentee voting, but it has always come with a tried and true validation process to ward off controversy. The system only works if we keep the same processes in place throughout. By changing the laws for how mail-in ballots are counted, states are paving the way for chaos and uncertainty in the weeks after Nov. 3. To change election laws this late in the game puts partisan legal teams in charge of determining the results of an election, rather than American voters." - "Don't change election laws this late: Anthony Fauci says in-person voting is safe with precautions. And widespread voting by mail could be dangerous to election integrity.," September 24, 2020. Another opinion piece on the sliding scale of authentication between in-person voting and voting by mail in an era where the rules changed very close to election: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/to_restore_election_integrity_end_mailin_vote_fraud.html The interesting part about all this is how quickly some folks want to move past these issues by removing DJTs lawful right to challenge the results as he sees fit. Very few on this site are suggesting that this ongoing matter be resolved for the greater good, the mantra seems to simply be "They need to stop". It really doesn't matter how many uncounted ballots are found, or irregularities pointed out--it's the very thought that a Presidential candidate other than the one they wanted chose to initiate the action. To draw a parallel, when our local DMV partially reopened after the lockdown, a friend of mine waited at the local office for 7 hours to complete a needed change. The government is not particularly adept at providing quality levels of service to begin with, and throwing a gigantic wrench in the monkeyworks just prior to the election certainly is problematic. As it relates to Dominion Software, issues have plagued the company for some time. Two former D Presidential nominees--one a long time front runner, expressed the very same types of concerns about Dominion in 2018: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/ar-BB1aZAYf The letter continued: “These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.” I inquired about this very Trump-esque concern raised by the other side less than 12 months ago, looking for dialogue and common ground. The response can best be summarized as no response at all. Here's the question--if former Presidential frontrunner Liz Warren was extremely concerned about it, as kinda-sort-maybe Presidential Candidate Amy Klobuchaer was very concerned about it---why the rush to close it out? Gore/Bush took 58 days to resolve, and Gore really never had a chance. It wasn't close. The established rules were followed, he took a flyer and lost. The world did not end, the sun rose and set, and we moved on. If, as they say, there is nothing to worry about, then by extension there is nothing to fear from seeing it through. Still, no evidence to overturn anything. 34 losses in court. Nothing is holding up for any of these theories. On the Dominion thing, they just did a hand audit in GA and found no irregularities in the machine count. Why would you keep trotting this out? If you want to change the law on mail in voting, the states can do it, just like they changed the law *to* mail in voting. Here in PA, the Republican legislature passed the mail in voting laws in 2019--before Covid. They put in a bunch of protections against fraud. If they want more protections, they can pass them next time around. This round is over. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, shoshin said: Still, no evidence to overturn anything. 34 losses in court. Nothing is holding up for any of these theories. On the Dominion thing, they just did a hand audit in GA and found no irregularities in the machine count. Why would you keep trotting this out? If you want to change the law on mail in voting, the states can do it, just like they changed the law *to* mail in voting. Here in PA, the Republican legislature passed the mail in voting laws in 2019--before Covid. They put in a bunch of protections against fraud. If they want more protections, they can pass them next time around. This round is over. I keep mentioning Dominion because there seems to be bilateral agreement that there was a problem with the system. I simply want the outcome to be correct. You seem to be fighting against shining a light in the corners for fear of what you might find. Besides, why would it bother you that I shared it with a guy named JaCrispy on the internet?? He asked questions, I provided food for thought. He may have some additional information from another source suggesting former Democratic Presidential Candidate Warren owned stock in a competing firm, or used to date a the CEO and they had a messy breakup, or that the problems she and others were addressed with a software patch. Internet democracy dies in internet darkness. You literally have nothing to fear on this issue, yet... 1
shoshin Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I keep mentioning Dominion because there seems to be bilateral agreement that there was a problem with the system. I simply want the outcome to be correct. You seem to be fighting against shining a light in the corners for fear of what you might find. Besides, why would it bother you that I shared it with a guy named JaCrispy on the internet?? He asked questions, I provided food for thought. He may have some additional information from another source suggesting former Democratic Presidential Candidate Warren owned stock in a competing firm, or used to date a the CEO and they had a messy breakup, or that the problems she and others were addressed with a software patch. Internet democracy dies in internet darkness. You literally have nothing to fear on this issue, yet... Your argument is that there’s no proof of anything wrong but what if there just might be. That’s not how we make cases in court. That’s why Trump keeps losing. The legislatures and election officials can revise things next time. That’s how it always works. That’s why I filled out bubbles in this election instead of voting electronically like I have for the last 18 years in my district. But if you want to change the election as it happens, you need a ton of proof. And while your authority as “a guy on the Internet” is convincing to some, I defer to the people making the cases in court, Trump’s “vaunted” legal minds, to have access to the best evidence. So far they’ve presented bupkis. And have bupkis to show for it. At some point you stop believing in the things you can’t see. Edited November 23, 2020 by shoshin 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, shoshin said: You argument is that there’s no proof of anything wrong but what if there just might be. That’s not how we make cases in court. That’s why Trump keeps losing. The legislatures and election officials can revise things next time. That’s how it always works. That’s why I filled out bubbles in this election instead of voting electronically like I have for the last 18 years in my district. But if you want to change the election as it happens, you need a ton of proof. And while your authority as “a guy on the Internet” is convincing to some, I defer to the people making the cases in court, Trump’s “vaunted” legal minds, to have access to the best evidence. So far they’ve presented bupkis. And have bupkis to show for it. At some point you stop believing in the things you can’t see. None this explains why you advocate suppressing information with another poster. Information is not your enemy, nor is it necessarily my ally, it's just information. If you believe in the law, kindly refrain from attempting to dictate what is shared and in what capacity it it shared. It's presumptuous. If you do not, carry on.
shoshin Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: None this explains why you advocate suppressing information with another poster. Information is not your enemy, nor is it necessarily my ally, it's just information. What are you even talking about? I have no power to suppress your words. You can say anything you want to another poster. If you do it publicly, I can comment on the veracity, or lack thereof, about what you're saying. 3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: If you believe in the law, kindly refrain from attempting to dictate what is shared and in what capacity it it shared. It's presumptuous. If you do not, carry on. See above.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 Just now, shoshin said: What are you even talking about? I have no power to suppress your words. You can say anything you want to another poster. If you do it publicly, I can comment on the veracity, or lack thereof, about what you're saying. See above. Thank you.
WideNine Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 10 hours ago, JaCrispy said: Thanks for the retort...some things I disagree with, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an excellent post...that’s the type of discussion I come here for...👍 If folks dig hard enough they will either come to an insurmountable truth, or something they can disagree on in principle. Cutting through the junk information to the source information makes the journey worth it for some. It is fine to agree to disagree. I do find it concerning that so many Trump supporters are willing to go so far out on a conspiratorial limb to either defend or promote his self-interests. As we have seen in the courtroom these past few weeks this propensity has splattered against the windshield of reality. Tweets, youtube videos, Fox News pundits, and political opinion pieces are not reality, they are not facts, and amazingly they are not admissible as evidence. I read a liberal article the other day lamenting a conservative court nominee that stressed how she was rated "unqualified" by the BAR. I dug one level deeper and checked out the BAR website and the candidate in particular and found that according to her peers and any who had worked with her, she was a rock star - a prodigy. The BAR qualified their "unqualified" rating by saying she simply had not fulfilled the requisite number of years arguing before the bench as a trial lawyer, but she had ample experience litigating elsewhere. Like anyone else I miss a few, but this is how I "try" to approach most information I digest from venues that have a known political/social slant. 1
Buddo Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 23 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yes, I’ll be glad to. As I stated, the impression given was that Sidney Powell was a part of Trump’s legal team. As I think back, I cannot recall a time when I ever heard that she was on his team either directly from her or DJT. When I performed the google search, there were multiple pages of Sidney Powell and “Trumps legal team” mostly with derogatory headlines attached. So, now my question—was she ever on his legal team to begin with? Has she been terminated from the team? If Sidney Powell was on the team, and has now been terminated, things on Team Trump appear dark. As for the Trust Tree, given our earlier interaction and lack of news coverage when I looked on google, I was concerned. I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives! That's a tweet from Trump on 15th November, that is in the 'Legal Machine Grinds to a Halt' thread on the last page. I don't know how to link it between the threads, but clicking on it in the thread, does take you to the actual tweet. I'm assuming that there is the evidence you wanted that Powell was associated with Trump's legal team, and it's also why msm have linked her o it. That and being around some pressers with Guiliani et al.
WideNine Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Unfortunately, the declaration about mail-in ballots lacks detail and assumes things are the way they always were (and interestingly, a quick google search of concerns about the legitimacy of mail-in voting yields hundreds of results from media sources far and wide, yet since 11/3 we've been told "OMG it's a perfect system!) . There is a difference between absentee ballots and mail-in ballots, and more importantly, there were "emergency measures' installed in many states under the guise of keeping people safe during the era of COVID. Here's a link that hilites some of the changes: https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_absentee/mail-in_voting_procedures_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020 In some cases, there are questions about the legalities of the changes, and by extension, whether or not the changes were appropriate. Here's a decent summary of the concern from one perspective: Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks (USA Today): "We have always had absentee voting, but it has always come with a tried and true validation process to ward off controversy. The system only works if we keep the same processes in place throughout. By changing the laws for how mail-in ballots are counted, states are paving the way for chaos and uncertainty in the weeks after Nov. 3. To change election laws this late in the game puts partisan legal teams in charge of determining the results of an election, rather than American voters." - "Don't change election laws this late: Anthony Fauci says in-person voting is safe with precautions. And widespread voting by mail could be dangerous to election integrity.," September 24, 2020. Another opinion piece on the sliding scale of authentication between in-person voting and voting by mail in an era where the rules changed very close to election: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/to_restore_election_integrity_end_mailin_vote_fraud.html The interesting part about all this is how quickly some folks want to move past these issues by removing DJTs lawful right to challenge the results as he sees fit. Very few on this site are suggesting that this ongoing matter be resolved for the greater good, the mantra seems to simply be "They need to stop". It really doesn't matter how many uncounted ballots are found, or irregularities pointed out--it's the very thought that a Presidential candidate other than the one they wanted chose to initiate the action. To draw a parallel, when our local DMV partially reopened after the lockdown, a friend of mine waited at the local office for 7 hours to complete a needed change. The government is not particularly adept at providing quality levels of service to begin with, and throwing a gigantic wrench in the monkeyworks just prior to the election certainly is problematic. As it relates to Dominion Software, issues have plagued the company for some time. Two former D Presidential nominees--one a long time front runner, expressed the very same types of concerns about Dominion in 2018: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/ar-BB1aZAYf The letter continued: “These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.” I inquired about this very Trump-esque concern raised by the other side less than 12 months ago, looking for dialogue and common ground. The response can best be summarized as no response at all. Here's the question--if former Presidential frontrunner Liz Warren was extremely concerned about it, as kinda-sort-maybe Presidential Candidate Amy Klobuchaer was very concerned about it---why the rush to close it out? Gore/Bush took 58 days to resolve, and Gore really never had a chance. It wasn't close. The established rules were followed, he took a flyer and lost. The world did not end, the sun rose and set, and we moved on. If, as they say, there is nothing to worry about, then by extension there is nothing to fear from seeing it through. As usual, one has to dig at least one-level deeper than the shallow end of the pool in regards to media reports: Actually read Elizabeth Warren's letter: https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/H.I.G. McCarthy, & Staple Street letters.pdf It is not as long as the usual reports I reference AND the specific issue cited by Warren was the 2018 voting machine issues in South Carolina where they use ES&S voting systems. Warren's missive (if you read it) was not directed specifically at Dominion, but at the potential risks of the consolidation of all the major companies providing voting equipment to now 3 primary vendors that serve over 90% of our election demand and in regards to those companies being purchased by large Wall Street fund(s) and stresses the need to safe-guard our elections and both maintain and test these systems. She cites some examples of vote tabulation errors and corrective actions vendors should take. Some excerpts: "We are writing to request information regarding H.I.G. Capital's (H.1.G.) investment in Hart InterCivic Inc. (Hart InterCivic) one of three election technology vendors responsible for developing, manufacturing and maintaining the vast majority of voting machines and software in the United States, and to request information about your firm's structure and finances as it relates to this company. Some private equity funds operate under a model where they purchase controlling interests in companies and implement drastic cost-cutting measures at the expense of consumers, workers, communities, and taxpayers. Recent examples include Toys "R" Us and Shopko. 1 For that reason, we have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry-an integral part of our nation's democratic process. We are particularly concerned that secretive and ''trouble-plagued companies,"2 owned by private equity firms and responsible for manufacturing and maintaining voting machines and other election administration equipment, "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems."3 In light of these concerns, we request that you provide information about your firm, the portfolio companies in which it has invested, the performance of those investments, and the ownership and financial structure of your funds.... ...and I will leave the rest to those who are driven to pursue the truth.
Warcodered Posted November 23, 2020 Posted November 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, Buddo said: I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives! That's a tweet from Trump on 15th November, that is in the 'Legal Machine Grinds to a Halt' thread on the last page. I don't know how to link it between the threads, but clicking on it in the thread, does take you to the actual tweet. I'm assuming that there is the evidence you wanted that Powell was associated with Trump's legal team, and it's also why msm have linked her o it. That and being around some pressers with Guiliani et al. I mean she had a press conference where Giuliani was standing to her right, pretending she had nothing to do with them is just crazy.
Recommended Posts