NWO/Illuminati US politics

Who should be POTUS?

  • Total voters
    41

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
bourbons said:
Another fine example of the false equivalence you're so fond of. Key points would be these;

Dispute arose from confirmed disparities, was settled by recount, and accepted by the losing side. No one asked their VP to refuse to certify results confirmed by recounts, or continued to accuse the other side of cheating in perpetuity after the event.

Likewise, a House member lodging an objection, quickly acknowledged and resolved via standard process, has happened before. Thats nowhere near pressuring your VP to not certify, just coz.

Yes, dueling electoral slates have occured before. Trump's actions in trying to create them have not.
Click to expand...
Trump didn't have to create dueling elector's, 7 States presented them, with two being supported further by Congress.

Nothing confirmed in Hawaii or two other states that had their results questioned, which didn't present dueling electors.

You think this is false equivalence? Bless!

Shows how effective it is to get the Governor to change his recommended slate of electors (despite certifying the other side after two audits showed they won) and show the power Nixon as VP had to reject the official set of electors and accept the dueling set of electors. In Trumps case with extra evidence which Congress would have been presented.

Comes down to the Governor and Nixon were was willing to play the game, Nixon promised his time to come later.

Early totals suggested that Kennedy had won the state by 92 votes.

However, errors in the official tabulation sheets reversed this result, instead suggesting a 141-vote victory for Nixon.

Democrats highlighted various apparent errors in the tabulation, including 34 precincts where the number of total votes cast in the precinct was smaller than the sum of Nixon's and Kennedy's vote totals, and other precincts where the number of total votes cast was much larger than the combined votes for Nixon and Kennedy.

Acting Governor Kealoha certified Nixon's 141-vote victory on November 28. Kealoha certified the result after two audits of the tabulation sheets by his office.

However, both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.

Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete state-wide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes. Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30.

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates.

To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".
 
bourbons said:
Its the standard response to Lebbo's inanity re: why interrupt an enemy making a mistake, it's all still going to plan etc.

He'll still be wheeling out this line in 10 years and beyond.

You still haven't answered mine, asked more than twice - why didn't they have them in court over this the instant Raffensperger refused?

Answer that and I'll happily address your question.
Click to expand...
No you quoted something from yourself which you're still getting triggered on based on a 4 minute expert of an hour long call, asking for invalid votes cast for Biden to be investigated which was the SoS responsibility.

I can't guess what was in Trump's or his lawyers thoughts about why they didn't take Raffersperger to Court except likely to take longer than the counting on 6th Jan. Raffersperger still might end up in Court with all the invalid votes he is now investigating.

From the precedent, not precedent, in 1960.

My question was a Yes or No fact and I'd already answered it. Was only asking again for you to answer your own question. SO don't bother as it only seems you want to play games.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ghost Patrol said:
Tell your friend his/her question doesn't make sense.

A good friend would have proof read it first.
Click to expand...
Way to deflect and ignore the question.

Friend is not looking over my shoulder proof reading.

Is one of your self proclaimed special skills, being one of Dan's paid social media influencers?
 
BlueE said:
Trump didn't have to create dueling elector's, 7 States presented them, with two being supported further by Congress.

Nothing confirmed in Hawaii or two other states that had their results questioned, which didn't present dueling electors.

You think this is false equivalence? Bless!

Shows how effective it is to get the Governor to change his recommended slate of electors (despite certifying the other side after two audits showed they won) and show the power Nixon as VP had to reject the official set of electors and accept the dueling set of electors. In Trumps case with extra evidence which Congress would have been presented.

Comes down to the Governor and Nixon were was willing to play the game, Nixon promised his time to come later.

Early totals suggested that Kennedy had won the state by 92 votes.

However, errors in the official tabulation sheets reversed this result, instead suggesting a 141-vote victory for Nixon.

Democrats highlighted various apparent errors in the tabulation, including 34 precincts where the number of total votes cast in the precinct was smaller than the sum of Nixon's and Kennedy's vote totals, and other precincts where the number of total votes cast was much larger than the combined votes for Nixon and Kennedy.

Acting Governor Kealoha certified Nixon's 141-vote victory on November 28. Kealoha certified the result after two audits of the tabulation sheets by his office.

However, both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.

Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete state-wide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes. Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30.

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates.

To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".
Click to expand...
Yeah, right, Trump had nothing to do with it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BlueE said:
In Trumps case with extra evidence which Congress would have been presented.
Click to expand...
nicholas-cage-funny.gif

"Would have been" :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy:

For sure, if there's one thing that defines Trump's actions post-election its the presentation of solid evidence! And no, of course Trump isn't personally responsible for creating any dueling electors, clearly that would have still happened absent of his rhetoric and shtick throughout the whole of '20. Jesus christ :tearsofjoy:

Won't bother with the rest, except to note its amusing you've quoted some of the same points from that wiki article that I did thinking it bolsters your argument rather than diminishes it. You're in orbit :drunk:
 
BlueE said:
No you quoted something from yourself which you're still getting triggered on based on a 4 minute expert of an hour long call, asking for invalid votes cast for Biden to be investigated which was the SoS responsibility.
Click to expand...
No mate, your understanding of me quoting myself here is completely mangled. As I clarified in post #7,316, I'll often quote myself when responding to Lebbo as he tends to wheel out the same debunked ridiculous claims we've dissected before, despite them not eventuating time and time again. In this case, his repeated claim was along the lines of "its all in the plan, why interrupt an enemy while they are making a mistake" - clearly, going to Raffensperger with the 24,000 illegal votes thing in the first place would be "interrupting the enemy while they are making a mistake", so his take (as usual) doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. I self quoted a response of mine that I've made to him previously when he made similar inane claims.
BlueE said:
I can't guess what was in Trump's or his lawyers thoughts about why they didn't take Raffersperger to Court except likely to take longer than the counting on 6th Jan.
Click to expand...
You can't? Really?? Reckon I can lol. Any possibility that it could it be something like "s**t, this will get laughed out of court in 5 minutes flat", do you think?

As Cranky loves to remind us, several court cases are still in progress now, so it wouldn't be any concern about it not being wrapped up by Jan 6.
BlueE said:
My question was a Yes or No fact and I'd already answered it. Was only asking again for you to answer your own question. SO don't bother as it only seems you want to play games.
Click to expand...
Well, seeing as the flailing "err I dunno" response above is clearly the best you'll be able to muster with respect to my question, I'll answer yours.

No, the process of voting on Nov 3 incorporating all the remote voting aspects probably didn't allow enough time for an audit prior to the meeting of the Electoral College, certainly not an audit that you would deem sufficient. What it does allow enough time for is recounts and other checks that have fully satisfied and been accepted by both sides previously, as confirmed by the wiki article on the 1960 election you quoted.

Not to mention audits that you would deem sufficient have subsequently taken place anyway after the EC deadline (AZ/Cyber Ninjas forensic audit), and nothing even approaching the systematic fraud being claimed has been found.
 
Last edited:
Classic American politics: When Repubs are in power, everything going wrong was the previous Democrats in charge. When Democrats are in power, everything going wrong is entirely them and nothing to do with the previous Republic government.
 
Lebbo73 said:
How the fu** does a crank like you become a mod?
Click to expand...
Simples, you call everyone you don't agree with a liar or a Nazi if they are against Dan Andrews, or sometimes both.

Makes them overqualified to be a mod.

Vic - How would you rate Daniel Andrews' performance as Victorian Premier? - Part 6

Not everyone, just the very obvious ones. PS Do you realise how stupid you and your mates sound calling everyone who hates Dan a Nazi? Has anyone called you a nazi? You get called a liar often, for good reason. But I can't recall anyone calling you a nazi. btw what's with the capital N?
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
bourbons said:
No mate, your understanding of me quoting myself here is completely mangled. As I clarified in post #7,316, I'll often quote myself when responding to Lebbo as he tends to wheel out the same debunked ridiculous claims we've dissected before, despite them not eventuating time and time again. In this case, his repeated claim was along the lines of "its all in the plan, why interrupt an enemy while they are making a mistake" - clearly, going to Raffensperger with the 24,000 illegal votes thing in the first place would be "interrupting the enemy while they are making a mistake", so his take (as usual) doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. I self quoted a response of mine that I've made to him previously when he made similar inane claims.

You can't? Really?? Reckon I can lol. Any possibility that it could it be something like "sh*t, this will get laughed out of court in 5 minutes flat", do you think?

As Cranky loves to remind us, several court cases are still in progress now, so it wouldn't be any concern about it not being wrapped up by Jan 6.

Well, seeing as the flailing "err I dunno" response above is clearly the best you'll be able to muster with respect to my question, I'll answer yours.

No, the process of voting on Nov 3 incorporating all the remote voting aspects probably didn't allow enough time for an audit prior to the meeting of the Electoral College, certainly not an audit that you would deem sufficient. What it does allow enough time for is recounts and other checks that have fully satisfied and been accepted by both sides previously, as confirmed by the wiki article on the 1960 election you quoted.

Not to mention audits that you would deem sufficient have subsequently taken place anyway after the EC deadline (AZ/Cyber Ninjas forensic audit), and nothing even approaching the systematic fraud being claimed has been found.
Click to expand...
So my understanding of you quoting yourself is mangled? Stopping tagging me into your mangled posts then!

You missed the point again about the GA refusing to investigate claims of invalid votes being cast for Biden, not create Trump votes. It was Raffersperger's job to investigate and a simple task to compare the official SoS documents Trump's lawyer presented, with his voting roll and he refused.

Spare me your hypotheticals instead of facts and "I won't answer your question if you don't answer mine", games.

Both Trumps legal advice at the time and current Democrat legal advice in the Atlantic, which the "constitutional scholars" are saying which has legal authority and historical precedent supports

the last Democrat with any power to stop the steal—or at least try to—would be Harris. “She’s certainly going to have quite a job on her hands on January 6, 2025,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and liberal constitutional scholar, told me. Nine months ago, Tribe and other Democrats praised Pence for interpreting his authority narrowly, but the next time around, they might ask Harris to wield the same gavel more forcefully.

“There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes"

Biden and Harris both pushing the narrative!
 
Last edited:
www.realclearinvestigations.com

Durham vs. Horowitz: Tension Over Truth and Consequences Grips the FBI's Trump-Russia Reckoning

By Aaron Maté, RealClearInvestigationsJanuary 20, 2022 As he documents the role of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in generating false allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, Special
www.realclearinvestigations.com www.realclearinvestigations.com
Summary.

As he documents the role of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in generating false allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, Special Counsel John Durham has also previewed a challenge to the FBI’s claims about how and why its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began.

At stake is the completeness of the official reckoning within the U.S. government over the Russiagate scandal – and whether there will be an accounting commensurate with the offense: the abuse of the nation's highest law enforcement and intelligence powers to damage an opposition presidential candidate turned president, at the behest of his opponent from the governing party he defeated.

The bureau's defenders point to Horowitz's report to argue that the FBI’s Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, is untainted despite its extensive use of the discredited Clinton-funded Steele dossier. Though highly critical of the bureau's use of Christopher Steele's reports, Horowitz concluded that they “played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening," which he said had met the department's "low threshold" for opening an investigation.

But Durham has made plain his dissent. Durham stressed that, unlike Horowitz, his "investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department" and has instead obtained "information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S."

Durham's November indictment of Igor Danchenko, Steele's main source, was the final nail in the coffin for the Clinton-funded dossier. But to sympathetic media amplifiers of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe, its origins were unscathed.

The first known Steele-FBI contact about the dossier came on July 5, more than three weeks before the Trump-Russia probe officially launched. Days before, Steele – working for the Clinton campaign via the Washington-based opposition research firm Fusion GPS – contacted Michael Gaeta, the senior FBI agent he had worked with on other matters. Gaeta was then serving in Rome as a legal attaché.

Steele, Gaeta recalled in congressional testimony, informed him that “I have some really interesting information you need to see … immediately.”

Gaeta jumped at the chance: “I said, all right, I will be up there tomorrow,” and immediately caught a flight to London. At Steele’s office on that early-summer day, the former British spy briefed his eager FBI handler on the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories he had generated and handed over a copy of his first “intelligence report.”

Gaeta quickly shared them with FBI colleagues. “I couldn’t just sweep it under the rug, couldn’t discount it just on its face,” he told Congress, adding that Steele “was an established source.” On July 12, Gaeta told a colleague in the FBI’s New York field office, the then-assistant special agent in charge, about Steele’s allegations. According to Horowitz -- the IG who concluded that Steele “played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening” – this agent then informed his superior about the Steele allegations “the same day.” The Steele material, Horowitz’s team was told, was seen by these FBI officials as "something that needs to be handled immediately" and "definitely of interest to the Counterintelligence folks."

On July 28, at his FBI colleague’s request, Michael Gaeta passed along copies of the two reports he had received from Steele.

Steele’s conspiracy theories quickly made their way up the FBI chain. According to the inspector general’s report, Gaeta heard from a colleague that high-level officials were already “aware of the reports’ existence,” including at the “Executive Assistant Director (EAD) level” at FBI headquarters in Washington. This occurred, Gaeta told Congress, “on maybe the 1st of August, right around then,” or “either the 31st of July.”

Before making the trip to see Steele in London, Gaeta also received the approval of Victoria Nuland, a senior Obama administration State Department official who now serves under President Biden.

Then-senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked alongside Steele at Fusion GPS, first made contact with Steele right before the former British spy’s meeting with Gaeta on July 5, and then shortly after. This led to a July 30 breakfast between the Ohrs and Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. – one day before Crossfire Hurricane began. At this sit-down, Ohr recalled to Congress, Steele claimed that he had evidence that Russian intelligence “had Donald Trump over a barrel.”

According to Ohr, “I wanted to provide the information he [Steele] had given me to the FBI.” He immediately reached out to Andrew McCabe, the then-deputy director of the FBI. “I went to his office to provide the information, and Lisa Page was there,” Ohr recalled, referring to the FBI attorney who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with Strzok while both worked on the Trump-Russia probe. “So I provided the information to them.”

When exactly this pivotal meeting occurred has never been resolved, and all involved have a fuzzy recollection.

the counterintelligence division decided to investigate the Trump’s campaign’s potential ties to Russia on July 31 based on an unrelated tip from Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat.

But when the Australian tip that reached the FBI in July 2016 was finally disclosed to the public in December 2019, Papadopoulos’ supposed “advance knowledge” about Russia’s alleged “hacking operation” turned out to be non-existent. The FBI’s tip from Downer contained no mention of the DNC hacking, a Russian interference campaign, or even the stolen emails handed to WikiLeaks. Nor did they even have any trace to suggest that a Russian intermediary had made an overture.

the FBI only heard that Papadopoulos, in his conversation with Downer, "suggested" that “the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia” (emphasis added) that it could “assist” the Trump campaign “with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).”

Downer later stated that the Trump campaign volunteer had made no mention of any stolen emails, and fact “didn’t say what it was” that Russia had on offer.

In other words, what Strzok wrote in his own book was untrue.

Because Downer’s tip was so thin, the FBI’s predicate was not only vague or even exculpatory, but also contained no indication that the “some kind of suggestion” actually came from the Russian government, or a Russian national, or anyone for that matter.

When it opened the probe, the FBI did not even know that that the purported “suggestion” to Papadopoulos came from his conversation with Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic. For his part, Mifsud has denied making any “suggestion” of Russian help to Papadopoulos at all.

The FBI concealed – just as it did with the FISA court – that Danchenko had in fact told its agents that corroboration for the dossier's claim was "zero"; that he "has no idea" where claims sourced to him came from; and that the Russia-Trump rumors he passed along to Steele came from "word of mouth and hearsay" and "conversation that [he] had with friends over beers" that should be taken with "a grain of salt."

When the FBI's deceptive reliance on Steele was brought to light in a memo from then-House intelligence chairman Rep. Devin Nunes in early 2018, the FBI fought to prevent its release. In the Nunes memo's release, the FBI claimed that it had "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."

When the first of the FBI's Carter Page warrants was declassified in July 2018, it showed that the only material omissions of fact were made by the FBI. Its source for this belief was Steele, whom it described as "Source #1" and "credible" – all while omitting that the Clinton campaign was footing the bill.

In addition, unidentified intelligence and law enforcement officials went out of their way to bolster Steele's image via anonymous leaks to credulous news outlets. "U.S. investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier," a CNN headline proclaimed in February 2017, weeks after the dossier’s publication. The FBI is "continuing to chase down stuff from the dossier, and, at its core, a lot of it is bearing out," an unidentified "intelligence official" told The New Yorker later that month.

The FBI's faith in Steele extended to sharing classified information with him. According to Horowitz, at an October 2016 meeting in Rome, FBI agents gave Steele a “general overview” of Crossfire Hurricane, including its then-secret probes of Manafort, Page, Flynn, and Papadopoulos. The FBI was so eager to enlist Steele that it offered to pay him $15,000 “just for attending” the Rome meeting and a “significantly” greater amount if he could collect more information.

This early FBI enthusiasm for Steele – and lengthy record of lying about it -- is hard to square with the bureau’s subsequent claims that he only played a minor role.

Durham's grand juries have already yielded indictments of two Clinton campaign-tied operatives for deceptive attempts to influence the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.

If Durham does unearth additional evidence that the FBI did not launch the Trump-Russia probe in the way that it claims, then that would be yet another devastating revelation for a bureau that has already been caught relying on Clinton-funded disinformation and lying about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top