First they complained about the makeup of the commission.........

Just curious, in 2016, didn’t one elector change their vote to hitlery? When trump won the state? Didn’t almost every demofk tell the electorate to change their votes? I’m trying to figure out how what trump suggested was different
BlindBoo , still can't accept fact as fact I see. it's who you are. a cheat.

 
BlindBoo , another one that you ignore that's fact. Dude, laugh at me as often as you need to. just know, you ignore facts, and I will post that as often as you laugh at me. here's the other piece I stated.

Did you happen to notice that they filed lawsuits and didn't start a riot or plan to overturn the results of the elections through illegal means. They also accepted the ruling of the courts didn't they?
 
If a state “certified” an election result despite election fraud that succeeded.....

Unproven allegations of fraud were not sufficient, this time.

You leftarded morons still deny that there was any election fraud at all.

In reality the claim is that there was no widespread fraud, and not enough to change the outcome in any state.
 
Unproven allegations of fraud were not sufficient, this time.

Any time. But then, I believe I already clearly noted that.
In reality the claim is that there was no widespread fraud, and not enough to change the outcome in any state.
The claim at the time was that there was widespread fraud and possibly enough to have altered the electoral outcome. Try to stay focused birdbrain.

It is amusing. I have consistently stated that, imho, since the evidence for the proposition that the election had gotten stolen was insufficient, Pence did the right thing. Nevertheless, if it had been actually stolen, the “certification” would have been a certified fraud.

Indeed, If it were somehow able to be established and confirmed, today, that the fraud efforts actually did alter the outcome, I have trouble believing that anything would or could now be done about the theft. The illicit President Brandon would still remain in office is my guess. Accordingly, the time to stop the suspected steal was then, not now. The ship has sailed.
 
The claim at the time was that there was widespread fraud and possibly enough to have altered the electoral outcome. Try to stay focused birdbrain.

Whatawinnie! Your claim was "You leftarded morons still deny that there was any election fraud at all."

Nice way to twist your panties into a very tightwad though.
 
Whatawinnie! Your claim was "You leftarded morons still deny that there was any election fraud at all."

Nice way to twist your panties into a very tightwad though.
Not at all. Not even a good attempt by you to spin. You’re an imbecile and it shows!

And you leftards still do deny any election fraud. You dishonest gasbag pussies.
 
Not at all. Not even a good attempt by you to spin. You’re an imbecile and it shows!

And you leftards still do deny any election fraud. You dishonest gasbag pussies.

Like a Chatty Cathy Doll with limited responses when her string is pulled, you circle back to the original lie.
 
Did you happen to notice that they filed lawsuits and didn't start a riot or plan to overturn the results of the elections through illegal means. They also accepted the ruling of the courts didn't they?
They impeached him so another fact you ignore
 
They impeached him so another fact you ignore
The electors who sued to become faithless electors did no such thing. That was the House of Representatives after the whistle was blown on Trumpyberra's Ukraine Shakedown Plot, and then after his MOB attacked the Capitol during the counting of the EC votes.
 
The electors who sued to become faithless electors did no such thing. That was the House of Representatives after the whistle was blown on Trumpyberra's Ukraine Shakedown Plot, and then after his MOB attacked the Capitol during the counting of the EC votes.
Denying facts is your thing
 
The electors who sued to become faithless electors did no such thing. That was the House of Representatives after the whistle was blown on Trumpyberra's Ukraine Shakedown Plot, and then after his MOB attacked the Capitol during the counting of the EC votes.

I am anti-Trump, but I disagree on the 2 impeachments.
Both were totally wrong, illegal, and partisan.
The first was the false claim of Russian collusion in the election, which was proven to not have happened at all, and would not have been illegal if it had happened.
The only thing that would have been illegal is unpaid campaign aid, which did not happen.
The second was the claim of extortion to make the Ukraine frame Biden, and clearly we all heard the phone conversation, and all Trump asked for was an investigation, not a predetermined outcome. So that was not illegal.
Both impeachments then were illegal because there was zero probable cause.
It was the WORST partisan criminal behavior by democrats, that I ever saw.
I will be voting for the Green Party, Jill Stein, or someone else, from now on.
 
When they denied the Republicans their choice of who sits on the panel, they removed any legitimacy the panel had.

The Dems didn't agree to shit, they dictated their terms.
Not true.

They only nixed two proposed Republican members because they were well known "BIG LIE" pushers and conspiracy-theory whackos.
All they would have done is distract from and disrupt the committee's work and make it less likely for the committee to expose the truth.

You simply DON'T put members of the conspiracy to overthrow the government on the committee investigating the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
It wouldn't make sense now,
would it?
 
Not true.

They only nixed two proposed Republican members because they were well known "BIG LIE" pushers and conspiracy-theory whackos.
All they would have done is distract from and disrupt the committee's work and make it less likely for the committee to expose the truth.

You simply DON'T put members of the conspiracy to overthrow the government on the committee investigating the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
It wouldn't make sense now,
would it?
So. Democrats get to reject any Republicans they don't like?

When has that been the rule?

The rule is Republicans get to choose who they want on the committee. It doesn't matter what Dims believe about them.
 
Not true.

They only nixed two proposed Republican members because they were well known "BIG LIE" pushers and conspiracy-theory whackos.
All they would have done is distract from and disrupt the committee's work and make it less likely for the committee to expose the truth.

You simply DON'T put members of the conspiracy to overthrow the government on the committee investigating the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
It wouldn't make sense now,
would it?

This isn't a jury trial, it's a hearing. What is so wrong with having those two in a hearing.

They ignored House precedent and didn't let the minority party select who they wanted to select, thus the entire thing is a sham
 

Forum List

Back
Top