- Thread starter
- #61
You keep on blowing right past the point. The White House doesn't direct the AG to interfere. He can decide to do so.Tell Biden that after his AG decided to help out with Arizonas auditNot usually. And when they do it's not because the White House wants them to interfere in election disputes. You do not use the DOJ to solve election disputes that is a clear abuse of power. In this case no different than those "Stalinist tactics" you were discussing. That is the point.Its not the DOJs job to investigate unconstitutional actions of states?If a presidential candidate wants to question the constitutionality of a particular policy he needs to do that in HIS name. He should NOT pressure the DOJ to do so. The DOJ is not a vehicle for a political campaign.I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election resultsI think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.
Like what he asked of Pence.
I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.
By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?
The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.
Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.
So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.
OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.
But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.
And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158
You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.
By the way "questionable"? What does that even mean? Questionable is what you say when a fat girl wants to wear a dress with horizontal stripes. It's not what you say when someone is trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
Yes, questionable. As in, the legality is debatable.
As to your legality bit. Either you believe that the only limitation to what a president can do to prevent his successor from taking power is whatever he can get away with on "questionable legality". Or you recognize that that standard leaves all kinds of abuses open.
Guess he doesnt want a functioning democracy either ey?
Unless you can show that Biden asked him to do that you are simply pissing in the wind.Tell Biden that after his AG decided to help out with Arizonas auditNot usually. And when they do it's not because the White House wants them to interfere in election disputes. You do not use the DOJ to solve election disputes that is a clear abuse of power. In this case no different than those "Stalinist tactics" you were discussing. That is the point.Its not the DOJs job to investigate unconstitutional actions of states?If a presidential candidate wants to question the constitutionality of a particular policy he needs to do that in HIS name. He should NOT pressure the DOJ to do so. The DOJ is not a vehicle for a political campaign.I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election resultsI think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.
Like what he asked of Pence.
I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.
By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?
The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.
Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.
So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.
OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.
But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.
And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158
You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.
By the way "questionable"? What does that even mean? Questionable is what you say when a fat girl wants to wear a dress with horizontal stripes. It's not what you say when someone is trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
Yes, questionable. As in, the legality is debatable.
As to your legality bit. Either you believe that the only limitation to what a president can do to prevent his successor from taking power is whatever he can get away with on "questionable legality". Or you recognize that that standard leaves all kinds of abuses open.
Guess he doesnt want a functioning democracy either ey?