Posted on 11/16/2020 11:10:39 AM PST by CivilWarBrewing
I just heard on NewsMax that President Trump has summoned his legal team to the White House for an "emergency meeting".
Not good.
Maybe its time to forget the courts, and go public with all of it. Send it to the state legislators directly.
Guardian says that one of his insiders, O’Brian, says he is.
Look back at his tweets in the last 2 weeks - very confident.
What else would be say in public?
You have never told a group of people they were losing their jobs—and you knew months earlier it was a possibility?
You wait until ALL of your avenues are reasonably exhausted—and one of the factors is taking the impact on that staff into consideration.
When the cause is lost is when you DO take emotions into it.
I am not saying it is—I am merely saying he is probably looking to get an objective and pragmatic assessment of his “path.”
Maybe that’s what the meeting is about.
Based on this tweet this morning, I would have to disagree with your assessment of the possible assessment.
"LOL, I believe the last people to be prosecuted and executed for treason were the Rosenberg's and that was in the 1950s. So the answer is zero. "
I would say that means we are due.
I question if Hillary actually got the popular vote.
**********
She did if the official record is to be believed. At this
point it makes no difference as she was never sworn in.
I think Trump is calling his team in to assess and a possible end-game. He will not fight for a pyrrhic victory like a win in Pennsylvania but not getting any other states flipped\invalidated to make a difference. I am sure the political side of this equation has been vetted and state legislatures have been whipped...maybe none have the will in these legislatures, no matter the proof shown in court to make a difference. What would be great and not expected by the Democrats would Trump go out and announce national guard troops deployed out to polling places in Georgia and national guard present at all counting and canvassing of the vote. Let the Dems scream and file lawsuits and Trump ignores the courts(including the Supremes). They cannot impeach him again. In a real honest vote, we win both runoffs by 10 points by just poll watchers and count watchers in the Planet of the Apes districts in Fulton and Cobb county. Aka watching the corrupt urban blacks.
Agreed! This CIA/Deep State/Venezuela/Big Tech electronic vote theft cannot stand. The Free World is in the balance. Hopefully the good guys will not be outmatched.
The clear issue to stress is the cataclysmic loss of trust in the electoral process, itself--rather than just focus on the idea of having to prove an exact number of corrupted ballots. Thus all of the irregularities become relevant to demonstrate an intolerable climate of corruption!
Yes, it will require courage on the part of some Court; but it recognizes the real problem.
At some point even a forlorn hope fails and a decision
has to be made not to reinforce failure.
That is the sign of real leadership which I believe
Trump exhibits.
We live in interesting times as they say.
Of course, he could surprise us all too.
Dittos. The only reasonable and rational thing to do in the light of this constitutional crisis is for the president to suspend habeas corpus and fight the media whores with all the power and might of his office.
Concede? See tagline. Trump will concede only if he is a loser, a liar and a quitter.
The Kraken was spotted off the coast of Norway heading to America
Good! About time to get them all together, figure out who’s boss, figure out what is going on, get the actionable evidence on the table, and do something other than talk to the press.
Release the (Pepe) Kraken!!
- How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that hundreds of thousands of votes were cast illegally?
In terms of overturning the vote itself, it is not a criminal matter requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof would be preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50%). Not only that, according to Rudy the burden of proof is on the proponent of a ballot. I have not independently researched that, though. I think it's more likely that a ballot is presumed legitimate unless one opposing the ballot can overcome that presumption. In any event, it would be a preponderance of the evidence standard.
I don’t see anyone else reporting this meeting let alone what he’s going to ask them......unless your a part of his advisor team and or the team itslef I doubt this report.
BTW It’s not about what people want to or not hear....it’s about what’s fake and what’s almost fake and whats actual reporting.
Neither of us have a clue. We don’t even know if a meeting is happening.
So there is that. LOL.
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.