House Democrats ask Trump to testify at his impeachment trial

[placeholder]

On 2/6/2021 at 10:10 PM, impulse said:

 

Read the article.  Comment on the contents.  Not on me.

 

But getting Never-Trumpers to read anything that conflicts with their narrative is a real challenge.  Gotta give that cabal credit for a job well done there.  That reference is explained in the article.  Read it.  Comment on it.

 

 

They did terrible things. Like getting funding for protective gear for election officials from private donors after the Senate and the Trump administration quashed the necessary 2nd round of funding.

Those sinister characters also prepared to fight the lies they figured Trump would launch on election night:

“We knew exactly what Trump was going to do: he was going to try to use the fact that Democrats voted by mail and Republicans voted in person to make it look like he was ahead, claim victory, say the mail-in votes were fraudulent and try to get them thrown out,” says Protect Democracy’s Bassin. Setting public expectations ahead of time helped undercut those lies."

 

[placeholder]

On 2/6/2021 at 10:02 PM, impulse said:

 

Well funded cabal.   It's a direct quote.

 

 

"That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures." 

 

A cabal that wants it story made public. Very sinister indeed.

[candide]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Read the article.  Comment on the contents.  Not on me.

 

But getting Never-Trumpers to read anything that conflicts with their narrative is a real challenge.  Gotta give that cabal credit for a job well done there.  That reference is explained in the article.  Read it.  Comment on it.

 

Quite interesting article, thank you for the link.

It shows many people anticipated Trump's scam attempt (it was so obvious months before elections) and made sure the vote of US citizen would not be subverted. And also that despite the pandemic, citizen would be able to cast their vote without being afraid of contamination.

[sirineou]

I was watching the news yesterday and they were interviewing Pennsylvania's Lieutenant  Governor   John Fetterman .

 He said the Pennsylvania voting commision  uncovered four dead people that had voted in the presidential election, and they all voted for trump  LOL

[impulse]

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how we got from this in 2019, to "the most secure election in history" in 2020.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/31/754412132/what-you-need-to-know-about-u-s-election-security-and-voting-machines

 

So far, no takers.  Anyone?

 

I'd add that the linked TIME article explains it nicely.  And it has nothing to do with fixing any machines.

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how we got from this in 2019, to "the most secure election in history" in 2020.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/31/754412132/what-you-need-to-know-about-u-s-election-security-and-voting-machines

 

So far, no takers.  Anyone?

 

I'd add that the linked TIME article explains it nicely.  And it has nothing to do with fixing any machines.

 

The machines are really immaterial. In all contested areas the votes have been hand counted. And in all instances the machine votes have been confirmed being accurate.

Edited February 6, 2021 by stevenl

[impulse]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The machines are really immaterial. In all contested areas the votes have been hand counted. And in all instances the machine votes have been confirmed being accurate.

 

I'm not aware of any states that did a complete hand count of ballots that have been inspected to make sure they were legitimately cast.  Maricopa county in Arizona is headed for one, but the county election Board of Supervisors keeps pushing back on the Arizona state senate subpoenas to turn over the machines and the ballots for an audit.

 

Regarding Georgia...

 

https://billmoyers.com/story/georgias-hand-count-of-2020-ballots-was-no-risk-limiting-audit/

 

So rather than an audit, recount, and re-canvass, it [the presidential re-tally] seems to have been their first canvass, because it’s the first time they looked to make sure that they actually had all their ballots accounted for. If they’re going to just keep counting until you get the same answer the machine did, that’s obviously biased procedure. That’s nowhere close to a risk-limiting audit.

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by impulse

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not aware of any states that did a complete hand count of ballots that have been inspected to make sure they were legitimately cast.

<Snip>

From your link 

"The official results slightly changed because Georgia did something not seen in any other state. It double checked its results, which had been compiled electronically, by conducting a hand count of every presidential ballot. "

 

In contested districts hand counts have confirmed the machine results.

[heybruce]

57 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how we got from this in 2019, to "the most secure election in history" in 2020.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/31/754412132/what-you-need-to-know-about-u-s-election-security-and-voting-machines

 

So far, no takers.  Anyone?

 

I'd add that the linked TIME article explains it nicely.  And it has nothing to do with fixing any machines.

 

Yes, vulnerabilities were identified a year in advance, steps were taken, and the election was secure.

 

I don't have a comprehensive list of actions taken to deal with the vulnerabilities, but having paper ballots as back-ups to the machine votes was one of them.  That is how the election results in Georgia were audited.

 

Regardless, there's a big difference between thinking there may have been machine hacks, and providing evidence of hacks.  You don't overturn election results because you think there might have been hacks when you have no evidence.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how we got from this in 2019, to "the most secure election in history" in 2020.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/31/754412132/what-you-need-to-know-about-u-s-election-security-and-voting-machines

 

So far, no takers.  Anyone?

 

I'd add that the linked TIME article explains it nicely.  And it has nothing to do with fixing any machines.

 

You do understand that when contested they are hand counted dont you.

 

Do you also understand this has been done to death and the courts have laughed at it.

 

60 attempts and nothing. You still waiting for the kraken?

 

Here is a tip for you. Anyone can write anything. But when it comes to presenting it under oath they run away.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Sujo

[candide]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You don't overturn election results because you think there might have been hacks when you have no evidence.

And in particular when allegations come from Trump! ????

[impulse]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:29 AM, heybruce said:

Yes, vulnerabilities were identified a year in advance, steps were taken, and the election was secure.

 

I don't have a comprehensive list of actions taken to deal with the vulnerabilities, but having paper ballots as back-ups to the machine votes was one of them.  That is how the election results in Georgia were audited.

 

Regardless, there's a big difference between thinking there may have been machine hacks, and providing evidence of hacks.  You don't overturn election results because you think there might have been hacks when you have no evidence.

 

I don't claim to know they were hacked.  But it would be nice to know, eh?  

 

Here's what I do know.  I have several Windows computers and a few Android devices.  Every week, I get a notice from my anti virus company with an update and a list of new exploits they've added in the last week.  So the idea that "steps were taken" isn't very reassuring. 

 

Dominion and the machine users have no way of knowing if the machines have been hacked.  Any more than I or Microsoft know if my Windows machines have been hacked.  Or you know whether your computer has been hacked.  There's a simple way to find out...  So, let's do an audit.  That's all I'm saying.

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by onthedarkside
quoted material from dubious source removed

[heybruce]

On 2/7/2021 at 4:35 AM, impulse said:

 

I don't claim to know they were hacked.  But it would be nice to know, eh?  

 

Here's what I do know.  I have several Windows computers and a few Android devices.  Every week, I get a notice from my anti virus company with an update and a list of new exploits they've added in the last week.  So the idea that "steps were taken" isn't very reassuring. 

 

Dominion and the machine users have no way of knowing if the machines have been hacked.  Any more than I or Microsoft know if my Windows machines have been hacked.  Or you know whether your computer has been hacked.  There's a simple way to find out...  So, let's do an audit.  That's all I'm saying.

 

 

You don't overturn an election or hold up an inauguration because there might have been a hack.  Especially when there is no evidence of hacking and every audit and recount has confirmed the election result. 

 

In addition, the only tenuous connection to the topic of Trump's impeachment trial is if you think an unconfirmed suspicion of hacking that is unsupported by all audits and recounts justifies Trump's involvement with the crowd that stormed the Capitol building.

[RJRS1301]

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

There's a simple way to find out...  So, let's do an audit.  That's all I'm saying.

There were several audits carried out, confirming the results and in one instance I am aware of increased the Dems count by about 3,000.  

Your sprouting the same matter time and again seems like you are painting yourself into a corner, and unable to open your mind to consider alternative opinions.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how we got from this in 2019, to "the most secure election in history" in 2020.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/31/754412132/what-you-need-to-know-about-u-s-election-security-and-voting-machines

 

So far, no takers.  Anyone?

 

I'd add that the linked TIME article explains it nicely.  And it has nothing to do with fixing any machines.

 

So far, read the first link. It quite explicitly states that the machines would have to be linked to the internet for a scam to work. The machines weren't linked to the internet. Also, at the time the article was written, the Republicans were furiously resisting any more funding to protect the election. On the grounds of states' rights. Eventually they folded and more funding was provided.

Funny. The 2nd article centered on Pennsylvania. It turns out that state was in the process of getting rid of all paperless voting machines. I did read in another link that lots of counties in Texas were resisting replacing their paperless machines. In fact,  it's Republicans who have most resisted upgrading election security. Maybe they were hoping for intervention from some an overseas friend of a certain ex President?

One of the lies promoted by Trump and company is about the blue shift. Essentially, Democrats applied for absentee ballots in much greater numbers than did Republicans. Not surprising, since Trump attacked the use of them as fraudulent. So in a state like Pennsylvania,  there was a blue shift. Democrats in Pennsylvania had pressed the Republicans to change state election law to allow the absentee ballots to be counted before election night.  But the Republicans nixed that. Probably because they didn't want to adopt the practice of Marxist states like Iowa. Also, just possibly, to help generate charges that the election was fixed. Not that they would ever stoop so low. Certainly the President would never ever make a claim on election night that he had won and that there was no need to do any further counting. Heaven forbid!

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not aware of any states that did a complete hand count of ballots that have been inspected to make sure they were legitimately cast.  Maricopa county in Arizona is headed for one, but the county election Board of Supervisors keeps pushing back on the Arizona state senate subpoenas to turn over the machines and the ballots for an audit.

 

Regarding Georgia...

 

https://billmoyers.com/story/georgias-hand-count-of-2020-ballots-was-no-risk-limiting-audit/

 

So rather than an audit, recount, and re-canvass, it [the presidential re-tally] seems to have been their first canvass, because it’s the first time they looked to make sure that they actually had all their ballots accounted for. If they’re going to just keep counting until you get the same answer the machine did, that’s obviously biased procedure. That’s nowhere close to a risk-limiting audit.

 

Maybe you should read that article more closely. The gist of it was that Georgia expected to have to do only a risk limiting audit and not a complete hand count of all the paper ballots. But, in fact, it ultimately did exactly that:

"It double checked its results, which had been compiled electronically, by conducting a hand count of every presidential ballot. Election officials did not plan on the hand count. Following a 2019 law, they expected to conduct a “risk-limiting” audit, which assesses the accuracy of the unofficial results by randomly sampling paper ballots."

 

[heybruce]

This is getting off-topic, but it seems some people who expressed little concern about Russian interference in past elections are now obsessed about election security.

[placeholder]

On 2/7/2021 at 4:35 AM, impulse said:

 

I don't claim to know they were hacked.  But it would be nice to know, eh?  

 

Here's what I do know.  I have several Windows computers and a few Android devices.  Every week, I get a notice from my anti virus company with an update and a list of new exploits they've added in the last week.  So the idea that "steps were taken" isn't very reassuring. 

 

Dominion and the machine users have no way of knowing if the machines have been hacked.  Any more than I or Microsoft know if my Windows machines have been hacked.  Or you know whether your computer has been hacked.  There's a simple way to find out...  So, let's do an audit.  That's all I'm saying.

 

 

The only problem with your fear being that the machines weren't linked to the internet.

[Scott]

Inflammatory, troll post and replies reported and removed.  

 

[SimpleMan555]

21 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Constitution Article I...gives the Senate the “Power to try all Impeachments,” says the remedy for conviction “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold” federal office...Article II, says, “The President...shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” To some, that language means that the Senate may not try a former official, who, by definition, cannot be removed from office. The constitutional scholars Bruce Ackerman and Gerard Magliocca wrote last month in the Washington Post that “the Constitution envisions impeachment only as a tool for proceeding against a president while he remains in office,” because impeachment’s purpose is removal, not punishment. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-risks-of-trumps-impeachment-trial

 

The above quote is at the heart of those questioning the constitutionality of the pending Senate Impeachment trial. The House of Representatives were acting within the bounds of the Constitution to vote on the Articles of Impeachment prior to the end of Trump's term.  The New Yorker article (a well established noted liberal magazine) is worth reading as it gives some excellent information regarding both the Constitution and Precedent regarding attempts to Impeach elected officials who no longer hold office. The written law and precedent are both important factors regarding any US Trial proceedings.

 

Given the gravity of the events leading to the HOR Articles of Impeachment, and the serious question of the constitutionality regarding a Senate trial after the accused has left office, I would think the appropriate course of action would be to petition the DOJ to investigate. Should the investigations and the results of a Grand Jury demand, The DOJ and Federal court could then move forward with a proper trial. If convicted of insurrection or similar, Trump would likely have to spend time in prison and be prevented from holding a Federal office again.  

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

11 minutes ago, SimpleMan555 said:

Given the gravity of the events leading to the HOR Articles of Impeachment, and the serious question of the constitutionality regarding a Senate trial after the accused has left office, I would think the appropriate course of action would be to petition the DOJ to investigate. Should the investigations and the results of a Grand Jury demand, The DOJ and Federal court could then move forward with a proper trial.

Any U.S. Attorney is empowered to investigate and prosecute violations of federal law, e.g., "insurrection." The fact that none have done so in this instance says volumes about the Democrat Party impeachment case.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[cmarshall]

5 minutes ago, SimpleMan555 said:

The above quote is at the heart of those questioning the constitutionality of the pending Senate Impeachment trial. The House of Representatives were acting within the bounds of the Constitution to vote on the Articles of Impeachment prior to the end of Trump's term.  The New Yorker article (a well established noted liberal magazine) is worth reading as it gives some excellent information regarding both the Constitution and Precedent regarding attempts to Impeach elected officials who no longer hold office. The written law and precedent are both important factors regarding any US Trial proceedings.

 

Given the gravity of the events leading to the HOR Articles of Impeachment, and the serious question of the constitutionality regarding a Senate trial after the accused has left office, I would think the appropriate course of action would be to petition the DOJ to investigate. Should the investigations and the results of a Grand Jury demand, The DOJ and Federal court could then move forward with a proper trial. If convicted of insurrection or similar, Trump would likely have to spend time in prison and be prevented from holding a Federal office again.  

 

 

I happen to agree with the cited opinion that the Senate has no jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial of a private citizen.  But the Senate is going to do so and the outcome of such a "trial" cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court since the SC lacks appellate jurisdiction over an impeachment proceeding, which is not a criminal trial.  

 

However that may be, the DoJ has a clear responsibility to investigate most or all of Trump's alleged crimes during office and before that, if warranted.  However, we know that the Biden administration would rather not indict Trump because of the political opposition likely to be aroused.  We will have to wait to see what Merrick Garland's intentions are.  

 

However, a conviction for incitement to insurrection based on Trump's Jan. 6 speech looks unlikely, because Trump was careful to include weasel words like "peacefully" despite his violent intention.  Nevertheless, there are a lot of other charges that could be brought against Trump and prosecuted successfully.

 

The Senate or House or both could conduct their own investigations and make referrals for prosecution to the DoJ.  Or they could create a commission like the 9/11 Commission to investigate and report to the nation, which could also create pressure for prosecution.

 

In addition, and this is where we will see Garland's intentions most clearly, some of Trump's pardon recipients are actually not in the clear at all.  The pardons for both Manafort and Flynn are for their convictions.  Flynn pleaded guilty to several crimes with which, as part of his plea deal, he was not charged, such as failing to register as an agent of a foreign government, namely Turkey.  Since he violated the terms of his plea deal by attempting to withdraw his guilty plea, the DoJ is fully entitled to charge him for those other crimes, not previously charged and not covered by the pardon.  Manafort was convicted on eight counts, but the jury was hung on ten others.  The government can still decide to retry him on the counts on which he was not convicted and which are not covered by the pardon.  

 

I hoped the Garland's DoJ will pursue these and other prosecutions to rectify the injustice of the most corrupt pardons in US history.

[cmarshall]

12 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Any U.S. Attorney is empowered to investigate and prosecute violations of federal law, e.g., "insurrection." The fact that none have done so in this instance says volumes about the Democrat Party impeachment case.

 

But all of the current US Attorneys are Trump appointees, since Biden has not fired any of them, having decided to leave that decision to the new Attorney General.  

[J Town]

15 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Any U.S. Attorney is empowered to investigate and prosecute violations of federal law, e.g., "insurrection." The fact that none have done so in this instance says volumes about the Democrat Party impeachment case.

The statute of limitation is FAR from over.

[Pattaya Spotter]

16 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

But all of the current US Attorneys are Trump appointees, since Biden has not fired any of them, having decided to leave that decision to the new Attorney General.  

Didn't they all swear an oath to uphold the Constitution...and if Joe Biden had any doubt about this, he could have fired any or all of them the day he took office. 

[Salerno]

35 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The fact that none have done so in this instance says volumes about the Democrat Party impeachment case.

 

Only thing it says to me is they are keeping their powder dry until the impeachment is finalised. Double jeopardy is not in play.

[Surelynot]

7 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Didn't they all swear an oath to uphold the Constitution

....5555....good one.

[mtls2005]

Rumblings of more Senate R's retiring, and McConnell "whipping" up 17.

 

Am doubtful but if anyone can put down trumpism it's the Grim Reaper.

 

 

[cmarshall]

9 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Didn't they all swear an oath to uphold the Constitution...and if Joe Biden had any doubt about this, he could have fired any or all of them the day he took office. 

 

All prosecutors exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in deciding which cases to bring without violating the Constitution.  

 

All or nearly all of the Trump appointees to the US Attorney's offices will indeed be fired by the new Attorney General.  

[Pattaya Spotter]

5 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

There were several audits carried out, confirming the results and in one instance I am aware of increased the Dems count by about 3,000.  

Your sprouting the same matter time and again seems like you are painting yourself into a corner, and unable to open your mind to consider alternative opinions.

No need for an audit, everyone knows hacking electronic voting machines and other computer networks is impossible...just ask the federal government.

 

US agencies hacked in monthslong global cyberspying campaign

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hackers broke into the networks of the Treasury and Commerce departments as part of a monthslong global cyberespionage campaign revealed Sunday, just days after the prominent cybersecurity firm FireEye said it had been breached in an attack... https://federalnewsnetwork.com/cybersecurity/2020/12/us-looking-into-possible-treasury-department-computer-hack/

 

Massive hack of US government launches search for answers as Russia named top suspect

 

(CNN) Days after several US agencies confirmed their networks were compromised in a massive data breach, federal officials are still struggling to understand the scope of the damage -- highlighting the sophistication and breadth of an ongoing hacking campaign

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/us-government-agencies-hack-uncertainty/index.html