Posted on 08/15/2023 10:48:35 AM PDT by spirited irish
The indictments including Trump asking supporters to watch OANN, Fox, and RSBN are way down the page under acts 100 and 101
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I bet if Trump had tweeted out “Hey everyone watch CNN they freakin ROCK” there would have been no issue
We have a lot of work to do. Trump can’t do it all.
Folks, wear you MAGA hat now. Just do a small act of protesting.
Do not be silent.
Just bought a MAGA hat.
I don’t think DeSantis has all these problems I may have to go with him.
No one cares.
Communism? Pretty sure it was illegal to criticize King George of England at one time.
What a simp. Are you a paid troll?
What a fraud
I’m beginning to see why black men leave relationships.
How easily we forget Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Brent Kavanaugh, and a host of other conservatives targeted by the left! Don't have skeletons in your closet? Don't worry, they'll put some there from 30 years ago and drag you through that manufactured mud.
If you think going with an unsmeared candidate ends the controversy, you haven't been paying attention.
Sorry...
I blame the members of the grand jury.
They are the stupid ones that are enabling this crap to continue.
How can people that don’t understand the basic principles of the law and the constitution issue criminal charges?
Look at what the Left did to Dr. Scott Jensen up here in MN that ended with that sh*t-wit Tim Walz selected Governor here. Ethics complain after ethics complaint came out of NO WHERE and have all since been found to be baseless.
Trump isn't perfect, but right now he's still the biggest dog in the room.
Does anybody have the full indictment from these idiots in Fulton County, Georgia?
When Jack Off Smith ‘unloaded’ his 45 pages of indictment nonsense, they were available online.
I don’t think DeSantis has all these problems I may have to go with him.
********
Do what your heart and head desires, but winning the 2024 Republican Primary is a numbers gane.
DeSantis doesn’t have the numbers, and I’m not sure even if Trump were assassinated that it would be a fait accompli for the Florida Kid.
Being a Democrat means never having to accept an election loss
by Timothy P. Carney, Senior Columnist, Washington Examiner
October 05, 2021 12:07 PM
Before former President Donald Trump refused to accept an election he clearly lost, whipping up a series of conspiracy theories and idiotic lawsuits and stoking deadly riots at the U.S. Capitol, there were the Democrats. They literally have not accepted a single presidential election loss this century.
After Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, she declared that Trump was an “illegitimate president.” As the Washington Post aptly characterized it, she also “suggested that ‘he knows’ that he stole the 2016 presidential election.”
This was in 2019, after Democrats in Congress and hostesses on MSNBC spent years trying to prove a false conspiracy theory that Russia somehow rigged the election in Trump’s favor.
The previous time the Republicans won, George W. Bush in 2004, Sen. Barbara Boxer and dozens of House members objected to Ohio’s electoral votes going for Bush, even though he won the state by more than 100,000 votes.
Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, promoted a conspiracy theory whereby enough votes were switched from Kerry to Bush by voting machines and enough voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls that it “could have been” determinative of the result in Ohio and, thus, the whole presidential election.
And the time before that? Well, famously, Al Gore sued in Florida and in the Supreme Court to overturn George W. Bush’s insanely narrow victory in that state. Democratic congressmen, even after the lawsuits ended, called the result a “coup d’etat.” They also challenged the electoral votes.
Why do I bring up the distant past? Because Democrats continue to peddle the line, which would be called “dangerous” if a Republican made the same argument, that Bush “stole” the 2000 election.
Watch this video of Terry McAuliffe in 2004, claiming Republicans stole the 2000 election. McAuliffe, who has never recanted that false claim, is now the Democratic nominee for the governor of Virginia and has the backing of the entire Democratic establishment.
That’s because the Democratic and liberal establishment say the same thing as McAuliffe:
And here’s Jonathan Chait at New York magazine last month, saying Bush never won the election fairly.
The Drum/Chait case, which is the most sophisticated version of the argument, is that the most liberal recount method utilized by a consortium of newspapers yielded a Gore victory. That recount method was one of the methods that counted overvotes, described by the Orlando Sentinel as “ballots rejected because machines detected markings for more than one candidate but when examined reveal voter corrections and other clear signs of intent.”
But every other version of the recount by the newspapers yielded a Bush win.
How does Chait decide the only method ultimately favorable to Gore was the right one? Conveniently, Chait thinks that’s the fairest method. We don’t need to argue which was the fairest method, though, because the Chait Method was a post-hoc innovation by the newspapers explicitly not permitted by law.
The recount ended when the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, striking down a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court. But had the Florida Supreme Court ruling stood, all 67 counties would have counted some ballots, and, according to the newspaper, this count would have yielded a Bush win, the New York Times reported: “[I]f Florida’s 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.”
Gore’s campaign was asking for a different, less defensible remedy — a selective hand recount only in four very pro-Gore counties. Again, the New York Times noted that that too would have resulted in a Bush win: “Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.”
Again, the facts establish that if Gore had won the Bush v. Gore court case, Gore would still have lost the 2000 election. It isn’t even controversial unless you are unfamiliar with the facts.
Returning to the Chait Standard, requested or ordered by neither the Florida Supreme Court nor the Gore campaign, Chait’s evidence that it was the real standard, rests on this passage in the Orlando Sentinel:
“If the recount had gone forward, it might have been expanded beyond what the Florida Supreme Court ordered by the man responsible for overseeing it, Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis. The recount was halted before he decided how it would finally work, but Lewis said in an interview earlier this year that he would not have ignored the overvote ballots. Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized, ‘I’d be open to that.’ ”
Again, “I’d be open to that.” The judge in charge of the recount would “be open” to maybe implementing a counting method that would have given Gore the victory. That’s a very thin thread upon which to hang a claim that Gore really won the election.
Florida law, on the other hand, was not open to that. The law explicitly said, “If an elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office or if it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice, the elector’s ballot shall not be counted for that office.”
Note that first clause — and the “or.” A ballot with two votes marked for president “shall not be counted for that office.” So, counting overvotes, which Lewis said he would consider, would have been illegal.
“Without overvotes,” the Orlando Sentinel explained, “Gore could not have won a statewide recount, the ballot study shows. In every recount scenario examined, Bush would have reaped more of the undervotes.”
You can always argue that the law should allow a more liberal vote-counting standard, but in fact, the law didn’t allow it. Under Florida law, Bush won. Had courts overturned that victory, they would have been rewriting the law in order to give Gore the victory. That would have been stealing the election.
Wow dude, I wish I were as smart and kewl as you! Unfortunately I take note of things that are happening and think for myself!
The same way they vote for Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.