MyPillow guy tells Steve Bannon that Trump 'will be back in office in August'

Wow this may be the most negative thread I have read in a long time—at least since the anti-Trump threads in 2015...With all the anti-Trumpers attacking anyone who supported Trump. You know who you are...

“Lindell’s smoking his pillows,” “Fool” “Hope Mike’s not back on the sauce,” “This needs to stop,” etc. comments...Can’t believe the defeatist attitude towards Lindell—a never-ending Trump supporter. Why go after one of our own...Yahoo could have used these posts in their article...

Since many of you cast stones already, let me note/ask:

1. Have any of you done more philanthropy than Lindell for various causes including American Cancer Society and Lindell Rehab center as well as both financial and vocal public support for President Trump?

2. Have any of you done more for exposing election corruption than Lindell? Done anything—except post? Glad there are so many government/Constitutional scholars on board too...”so impenetrably stupid and constitutionally impossible” Think Lindell hasn’t hired attorneys who think otherwise? Wasting money? Who cares...it is his to waste.

3. Fool? Really? He started a very successful company—from scratch...please, can any of you share your well-known companies and business successes?

4. I am not well versed in Q, and I don’t remember Lindell talking about Q. Can you please show me where Q says/said Trump will be back in office in August? or Q referencing Lindell?

5. Lindell has another documentary ready to air...He said he has more evidence...Have any of you watched the new documentary? Doubt it~~because I don’t think it is out yet.

He believes he has important new evidence, maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, maybe he knows something we don’t, or maybe he is just an optimist. What is wrong with him believing he does??

The Country is in real trouble—seems some are resigned that USA is over...And it may be if we don’t get things turned around regarding 2020 election. At least he is doing something.

I just appreciate that he is not giving up. He is not a defeatist—and Thank God Trump wasn’t/isn’t or he likely would not have ever run. I don’t know if Trump will return in August or if ever, but I don’t fault Lindell for believing it.

“I fear that America is no longer a viable Republic. The people are too stupid to see through the lying media filth.”

Bingo. People are too stupid to see that all of the Left’s “progressive movement” issues are just part of a smokescreen. Climate change, racism, homophobia, wealth inequality - all they are all fake issues.

Their real agenda has always been to cripple the Constitution - hobble our right to self-govern - so that they can govern us totally. Our Constitutional Republic and the Bill of Rights are the only obstacles standing in the way of their tyranny.

The Left is not about equality and fairness as it purports to be - it is diametrically opposed to the founding principles of a limited government - of the people, by the people and for the people.

“Since the election, I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop and it hasn’t.”

I know what you mean. It’s pretty much hopeless. In fact, when I saw my Primary Care doctor Monday, she wanted me to go on a medication I definitely don’t want to take, and I told her I wouldn’t. Her eyes bugged out and said words like, “possible” and “fatal”. I asked, “Do I look like I care?” I refrained from asking, “Didja SEE who’s in the White House?!” (You never know whose side she’s on.)

Anyhow, I don’t care. I’m thankful that I lived 70 years in freedom, and am OK checking out any time. Like you, I’ll hope for the other shoe to drop, and I don’t think it will. :(

Since the election, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop and it hasn't. Is the shoe going to drop? Is there a shoe to drop?

Yes, I believe there is another shoe to drop. There is a very credible witness who states that a confession was given in open court in Naples, Italy before a judge, and with the data from the election. That witness also was granted state security protection like our federal witness protection program. At some time, that confession will be unsealed, and hopefully, an arrest warrant will issue.

Who will be arrested? The story is that Obama skimmed money from the money returned to Iran to rig elections in the U.S. The Italian legal system is very slow. It's the slowest in Europe. They also have a different system, which was refined to eliminate corruption from the mafia. The judges appoint the prosecutors, not the executive branch. So, politics should play no part in the prosecution. An extradition request for Obama would prove very interesting.

The election was conducted by rules that weren't legal. Therefore, any reasonable person can conclude the elections were in fact illegal. A conclusion to the contrary is pure sophism.

No, a reasonable person could not conclude that an election conducted with one invalid rule, with no evidence that the rule affected the outcome, is "illegal."

Right, the election was conducted unlawfully, but the judges will not craft a remedy. It is being treated as an "error", not fraud. The statutes were designed to prevent fraud, but without showing fraud the courts did not intervene. Now the fraud claim will be made, with evidence heretofore unavailable.

There is a remedy for fraudulent elections in Michigan, as the courts pointed out months ago. It is a quo warranto action. The remedy would have been to seek quo warranto against the electors before they cast their votes. Trump made no attempt to do so, and the electors cast their votes for Biden.

Only if one accepts that an election conducted unlawfully could be valid. The continuing theme is that U.S. courts refuse to afford a remedy for an unlawful election, contrary to the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Compare that to the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine where the Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered the election re-run because the election had been so compromised by fraud. The only way to distinguish the results is that no fraud claim about the election has yet been made. It is coming soon.

So failing to overturn the results of an election where one rule was held invalid, but where there is no evidence that the outcome was affected, violates the guarantee of a republican form of government? I don't think so.

You are essentially assuming a standard whereby any election that is not conducted perfectly is void. That certainly isn't the law, nor could it be the law in a functioning republic.

No, a reasonable person could not conclude that an election conducted with one invalid rule, with no permitted discovery of evidence that the rule affected the outcome, is "illegal."

There fixed it for you, but a reasonable will draw a negative conclusion when the rules are illegal and the ballot counting process is closed from observation and witnesses. As long as discovery or an audit of the ballots is prohibited, in your mind, there is no proof of the fraud. Fake "elections" where the opposition and neutral poll watchers can't watch the ballots being counted are not considered valid elections internationally. Yet, when that happens here and people can't observe that process, people like you act like it is somehow normal. It is not. Do you really think it is acceptable to cover up the windows when the ballots are counted, and then deny an audit of what really happened? Here is a picture for you at the link:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/3-191-600x388.jpg

There is a remedy for fraudulent elections in Michigan, as the courts pointed out months ago. It is a quo warranto action. The remedy would have been to seek quo warranto against the electors before they cast their votes. Trump made no attempt to do so, and the electors cast their votes for Biden.

Again, without the ability to witness or audit the ballots, there is no hard evidence of the fraud. Thus, the "no evidence" canard goes around like a dog chasing its tail. No one will be permitted to view the evidence, from which a reasonable person, like an international election observer, would draw a conclusion that the vote count was badly corrupted. Somehow, in the past 20 years or so, voting machines have been permitted to replace people counting the ballots. That is the heart of the problem.

So failing to overturn the results of an election where one rule was held invalid, but where there is no evidence that the outcome was affected, violates the guarantee of a republican form of government? I don't think so.

There you go again! WOOF! WOOF! Let me give you a doggy treat to get you to stop chasing your tail you silly dog...

You are essentially assuming a standard whereby any election that is not conducted perfectly is void. That certainly isn't the law, nor could it be the law in a functioning republic

Let's start with fundamentals. The legislature sets the laws for the election. The executive executes those laws, and may only make "rules" that don't violate the laws or the constitution. In this case the illegal rule pertained to counting ballots most susceptible to voting fraud, mail in ballots. Furthermore, witnesses were excluded from meaningful access to the ballot counting process, and other illegalities were observed. These issues compound the "error" of the illegal election. Yet, you persist in assuming that the violation of the law did not affect the outcome of the election, even when no audit has been conducted in the matter. In a properly functioning republic, its officials and judges actually want to know the magnitude of the harm by illegal rules. You and ours do not. Then you go around posting nonsense about how elections aren't perfect, but nothing has been proved to your satisfaction. In short you contend that ignorance is bliss. Once people have no confidence in the elections and by extension the occupying regime, public order decays, much like what we are now witnessing on the Southern border, and then worse.

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.