31 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

check the navarro report too.

Stop by jan 6th congress meeting for a mega fraud evidence dump by trump.

Why wait. Get it to court and stop the steal.

 

or not, move on.

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right.  Rather than use all the evidence of "mega fraud" during the election challenges in court, where it would have done some good, they will wait until the formality of certifying the electoral college vote, when the "evidence dump" won't change the election results.

 

Do you really believe that?

believe what?

3 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

believe what?

Believe the nonsense you are posting.  If there were evidence of "mega fraud" it would have been presented in the court challenges, not sat on until January 6.

 

Or was your post meant to be sarcastic?

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Believe the nonsense you are posting.  If there were evidence of "mega fraud" it would have been presented in the court challenges, not sat on until January 6.

 

Or was your post meant to be sarcastic?

All these promises of evidence, just wait, no not this time just wait, no not this time just wait. After 60 attempts thats a lot of waiting.

 

but you wont believe the mega dump this time, it will be huge, bigly, you just wait.

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

All these promises of evidence, just wait, no not this time just wait, no not this time just wait. After 60 attempts thats a lot of waiting.

 

but you wont believe the mega dump this time, it will be huge, bigly, you just wait.

It will be the BEST dump, the most beautiful dump you ever seen!

55 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

check the navarro report too.

Stop by jan 6th congress meeting for a mega fraud evidence dump by trump.

Navarro?  You've got to be kidding.  Mega fraud evidence dump?  You're delusional.

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Believe the nonsense you are posting.  If there were evidence of "mega fraud" it would have been presented in the court challenges, not sat on until January 6.

 

Or was your post meant to be sarcastic?

Don't feed the troll....????

18 hours ago, stevenl said:

At least some in the GOP are consistent and have said 'if the presidential election was not fair, also the members of Congress from contested states should not be sworn in.

https://news.yahoo.com/gop-lawmaker-objected-seating-us-024509062.html

 

but hypocrisy took  over and they all sworn pledging/allegiance to the constitution.... they should be locked up

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/the-people-who-pledge-allegiance-to-the-us-constitution/540828/

The oath is striking for the way it eschews the cultural nationalism so loudly trumpeted by the America First crowd, by putting devotion to the Constitution above all else:

1 hour ago, codemonkey said:

check the navarro report too.

Is that the latest attempt to repackage the same old debunked lies under a different title and format, after the courts cases, the Powell Kraken, and the Giuliani  hotel hearings? Or can we expect something new to entertain us, like Hitler and Hillary shredding ballot papers in a pizza shop basement? 

 

1 hour ago, codemonkey said:

check the navarro report too.

Stop by jan 6th congress meeting for a mega fraud evidence dump by trump.

You want all of us to rely on identifying fraud from Navarro who is currently  serving in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator.

1 hour ago, codemonkey said:

Can have a look here.

That is from August 2018.

But it shows how long this nonsense about electoral fraud has been going on. 

1 hour ago, codemonkey said:

check the navarro report too.

Stop by jan 6th congress meeting for a mega fraud evidence dump by trump.

This might be the most embarrassing document created by a White House staffer

"It’s not a report. It’s a garbage dump."

This might be the most embarrassing document created by a White House staffer - The Washington Post

Navarro cites the "blue shift" as proof of fraud. Somehow, the "red shift" escaped his attention.

He claims illegal bribery in Nevada because of a raffle. Except the raffle was legal.

He cites an expert who once erroneously claimed that data from Minnesota was from Michigan.

He repeatedly cites the Epoch Times as a legitimate source of evidence.

 

1 hour ago, codemonkey said:

Can have a look here.

That is from August 2018.

You asked what commission he was referring to. I gave you the answer.

16 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

You want all of us to rely on identifying fraud from Navarro who is currently  serving in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator.

Navarro recently claimed that the inauguration could be postponed. He apparently has his own private version of the Constitution.

On 1/3/2021 at 11:09 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m looking forward to what deranged minds will offer as Trump’s path to the WH after January 6.

 

I expect a few hours silence while someone dreams up something stupid, then a full-on blast of ‘on message’ repetitions of what has been ‘passed’ down.

 

 

 

He's never going to get back there whatever he tries now. No, absolutely no, evidence presented by all his lawyers who claimed to have loads of evidence of voter fraud.

 

Even Barr said there was none.

 

But extreme right wing twitter posters still claiming to find examples. 

 

As for Trump, is next big claim will be that the criminal charges he faces, whatever the nature, are all politically motivated and that he's never ever done anything wrong, ever. Not the first ex leader of a country to claim that one! 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Right.  Rather than use all the evidence of "mega fraud" during the election challenges in court, where it would have done some good, they will wait until the formality of certifying the electoral college vote, when the "evidence dump" won't change the election results.

 

Do you really believe that?

Given how certain Trump supporters have been about improbably favorable outcomes at various junctures since the election, why would you expect this case to be any different?

On 1/4/2021 at 2:47 AM, candide said:

Let's talk about trying to cheat! Next congress session may not turn out as expected by Cruz and Trump!????????????????????????

 

"So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump told Raffensperger, laying bare his overriding goal of overturning the November election results."

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-georgia-runoffs-190320492.html

 

 

Hey, Trump is only giving Raffensperger a chance to come clean.  And giving him fair warning, rightly so, that there will be consequences for not doing so.  From the conclusions others have drawn from this phone call it seems they must have had the audio playing backwards.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, Trump is only giving Raffensperger a chance to come clean.  And giving him fair warning, rightly so, that there will be consequences for not doing so.  From the conclusions others have drawn from this phone call it seems they must have had the audio playing backwards.

Because once Trump is inaugurated for a 2nd term in 15 days, there's going to be a day of reckoning for people like Raffensperger?

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, Trump is only giving Raffensperger a chance to come clean.  And giving him fair warning, rightly so, that there will be consequences for not doing so.  From the conclusions others have drawn from this phone call it seems they must have had the audio playing backwards.

I just saw an interview of Rafael Edward (aka Ted) Cruz on Fox (ick). He was saying everyone should just relax, and his message was (paraphrasing) to set the constitution aside for a short bit, fix this election, THEN bring back the constitution. This man is a stain on what used to be a somewhat decent GOP.

Just now, placeholder said:

Because once Trump is inaugurated for a 2nd term in 15 days, there's going to be a day of reckoning for people like Raffensperger?

No retribution.  Everything by the law.  And only by the law.

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, Trump is only giving Raffensperger a chance to come clean.  And giving him fair warning, rightly so, that there will be consequences for not doing so.  From the conclusions others have drawn from this phone call it seems they must have had the audio playing backwards.

I just saw an interview of Rafael Edward (aka Ted) Cruz on Fox (ick). He was saying everyone should just relax, and his message was (paraphrasing) to set the constitution aside for a short bit, fix this election, THEN bring back the constitution. This man is a stain on what used to be a somewhat decent GOP.

Not sure why you're replying to my post as your reply has nothing to do with it.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No retribution.  Everything by the law.  And only by the law.

With Trump as chief executive?

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Not sure why you're replying to my post as your reply has nothing to do with it.

It was how Cruz was reacting to the audio.

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, Trump is only giving Raffensperger a chance to come clean.  And giving him fair warning, rightly so, that there will be consequences for not doing so. 

Let’s hope Trump gets a chance to explain it like this to a judge to come clean. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No retribution.  Everything by the law.  And only by the law.

The law has turned down Trumps attempt to overturn the election 59 times (and counting). Yet in this instance it's not 'everything by the law'.

Is it 'only by the law' when it suits your purpose? 

14 minutes ago, J Town said:

Seems as if the "get over it" crowd are having a tough time getting over it.

But it ain't over yet.

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

With Trump as chief executive?

Kudos to you, placeholder.

Just now, Tippaporn said:

But it ain't over yet.

First the results will be overturned by Congress even though the Democrats have a majority in the House and many Republican Senators won't support invalidating the results. And on the off chance that doesn't succeed, then the military will be called in based on the Insurrection Act to force a retake of elections in states that have had their results questioned by Team Trump. It's a lock for Trump!!!

5 minutes ago, J Town said:

It was how Cruz was reacting to the audio.

No kidding?  I would never have guessed from your reply.  Still has nothing to do with my post.

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

The law has turned down Trumps attempt to overturn the election 59 times (and counting). Yet in this instance it's not 'everything by the law'.

Is it 'only by the law' when it suits your purpose? 

In those 59 cases how many cases was the evidence heard?  Were all 59 cases by Trumps team or were there cases brought by others?  Do you know the answers to those questions?  I highly doubt it.