Posted on 02/01/2021 5:18:24 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
By Thursday the 12th of November, President Donald Trump’s election lawyers were concluding that the reality he faced was the inverse of the narrative he was promoting in his comments and on Twitter. There was no substantial evidence of election fraud and there were nowhere near enough “irregularities” to reverse the outcome in the courts.
Thursday the 12th was the day Trump’s flimsy, long-shot legal effort to reverse his loss turned into something else entirely — an extralegal campaign to subvert the election, rooted in a lie so convincing to some of his most devoted followers that it made the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol almost inevitable.
Weeks later, Trump is the former President Trump. In coming days, a presidential transition like no other will be dissected when he stands trial in the Senate on an impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection.” Yet his lie of an election stolen by corrupt and evil forces lives on in a divided America.
A New York Times examination of the 77 democracy-bending days between election and inauguration shows how, with conspiratorial belief rife in a country ravaged by pandemic, a lie that Trump had been grooming for years finally overwhelmed the Republican Party and, as brake after brake fell away, was propelled forward by new and more radical lawyers, political organizers, financiers and the surround-sound right-wing media.
In the aftermath of that broken afternoon at the Capitol, a picture has emerged of entropic forces coming together on Trump’s behalf in an ad hoc, yet calamitous, crash of rage and denial.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
How have all of the leftists and liberal talking heads determined this BEFORE there has been a thorough investigation? Huh?
The fear just jumps right out of this article.
There were serious constitutional irregularities leading up to the election and that is a fact. These irregularities were never heard by the Supreme Court due to standing issues. Basically the Supreme court wanted no part in overturning an election even if it would have been justified.
And they still so desperately want us to believe that Joe Biden - JOE BIDEN - is the most popular president in U.S. history.
What a joke.
7... SEVEN so called ADULTS to write this...SEVEN!!
It’s like you took the actual story of the Democrats’ reaction to Trump’s 2016 win and just switched the names. Then the whole article is just about true.
And once more, the NYT tries to tell us not to believe our lying eyes...
The FRAUD in this election was EPIC and they did nothing to hide it, knowing there would be no consequences for them- esp. coming from the RINOs. And why did they sit on their hands? Because they are as big a group in the swamp as any ( I’m looking at YOU, McConnell, Cheney, Kinsinger). They have a sweet deal going on up there in DC and don’t want the Patriot wing or the people interfering with it.
Did the NYT really look at the data and analysis before dismissing it as lies?
No, of course not - not to a journalism major anyway. Those of us with math degrees know what beyond a reasonable doubt really means. (e.g. here)
Maybe the good journalist would argue for a court to hear some evidence instead of disqualifying everyone who has the temerity to bring the question.
ML/NJ
There was no substantial evidence of election fraud “
Yeah? Name one agency that looked at the evidence.
Hard pass...
Goebbels, of an earlier Socialist regime’, maintained that if those in power/perceived authority tell a lie often enough the people will accept it. This is true.
So, one proper response is to deny the lie on every occasion. Don’t have to disprove, just point out that “THEY” benefit by the lie and have not allowed anyone to dispute it — in court.
Just say “No”. Call BS. Don’t look away or hunker down. Maintain that “THEY” have to prove that the election was not stolen. After all, “THEY” are the ones that benefit by the lie. “THEY” need to defend their position.
“I’m listening.” “Go ahead.”
It take seven (!) people to make up this propaganda piece.
I sent them this link....though they probably already know about it.
Subvert the stolen election
They never disproved anything
“one proper response is to deny the lie on every occasion. Don’t have to disprove, just point out that “THEY” benefit by the lie and have not allowed anyone to dispute it — in court. Just say “No”. Call BS. Don’t look away or hunker down. Maintain that “THEY” have to prove that the election was not stolen. After all, “THEY” are the ones that benefit by the lie. “THEY” need to defend their position. “I’m listening.” “Go ahead.””
Excellent.
Every time I see these Election Fraud Deniers spout these lies I mentally note that they are spouting their leftist propaganda “WITHOUT EVIDENCE” (one of their favorite phrases).
Did the NYT really look at the data and analysis before dismissing it as lies?
...........................................
Of course they did, but surely you don’t think the fact that it did, and that it was fully aware of the hundreds of election law violations, would sidetrack its agenda to help get that fool elected, do you?
These weren’t constitutional irregularities. It was outright unconstitutional .
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.