[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.7348[View All]

File: 1602908688125.jpg (409.17 KB, 1332x1532, 333:383, 1602715851324.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Will the Hunter Biden laptop leak have much influence on the election?
58 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8287

>>8286
I didn't say "they" in that post,  and your leaping to accusations of crazy conspiracy theories only demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty, and inability to engage with what I have said thus far.

Here is a word I think you could benefit from learning.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercion

 No.8288

File: 1607646151227.jpg (53.32 KB, 353x350, 353:350, 4a8035fi7dj4.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8286
>You are literally asking me for evidence that would belong in FBI custody.
Well, if they had actual evidence that Michael Flynn lied (e.g., an audio recording), why haven't they released it?  Criminal cases in this country are supposed to be open, so that the public can have confidence that justice is being done.  

 No.8290

>>8287
I misread what you said as "they" instead of "I", but the basic premise of my response is the same.

Who is "coercing" him? The lizard people? The qAnon pedophiles? The resurrected corpse of Karl Marx? You're creating this fictional conspiracy just to make him look innocent and to justify Trump's actions of pardoning a criminal he had ties to. It's completely silly.

 No.8291

>>8290
The prosecution.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how the legal system in America works?

And of course either way, you didn't answer my question:
Is a confession gained through coercion legitimate?
I would personally say "obviously not".

 No.8292

>>8291
You haven't provided any evidence of coercion. You've simply asserted there was some and that Flynn's own confession wasn't valid and therefore Trump's actions were somehow noble.

It's all built on your initial premise you've provided no evidence for, and goes against everything we know about Trump and his criminal co-conspirators.

 No.8293

>>8292
I did, actually.
>>8278

 No.8296

>>8293
All your claims hinge on the idea that Flynn was coerced into giving a false confession. It doesn't matter how old a law is or how often the charge is used. So the only link you gave of these that actually even discusses potential coercion is the politico article.

First off, you use the word "threatening" to describe it. While that's not inaccurate, it's a misleading, loaded term to use in this context. The actual claim by Flynn's legal team, according to this article, is that they had an alleged off-the-record deal not to prosecute Flynn's son in crimes he had connections to, in exchange for a pleading guilty.

But the problem with off-the-record deals like that, is that there is no record to show that they happened. It's his word versus theirs. If your whole argument hinges on this one fact that you cannot prove actually happened, then it's a faulty argument. To me, it seems that Flynn and his legal team have way more reason to lie and fabricate things to try and make him look like the victim. I mean, it worked on you. Your justifying Trump pardoning a criminal co-conspirator because of this false narrative.

Also, on unrelated note. You can't use "Orange man bad" as a dismissal, when the orange man IS bad. The orange man is currently, actievely trying to destroy democracy with phony lawsuits and claims of voter fraud without evidence. You doing this is like trying to mock someone by saying "fire hot!" when they are pointing out you shouldn't stick your hand in fire place. Like, yeah, fire IS hot.  

 No.8297

>>8296
The fact that his plea changed after it was made clear the deal was not going to be honored I would call blatantly obvious evidence that anyone examining this from a neutral and non biased position should be able to acknowledge easily.

>The actual claim by Flynn's legal team, according to this article, is that they had an alleged off-the-record deal not to prosecute Flynn's son in crimes he had connections to, in exchange for a pleading guilty.
Yes,  this would be again objectively and definitionally a threat.
If your want to claim it's a justified or necessarily threat, fine, but can we please not be ignoring basic English?

>But the problem with off-the-record deals like that, is that there is no record to show that they happened. It's his word versus theirs
Yes, and we presume innocence, because otherwise you'd be a pedophile.

That said the circumstances favor his case.  Why change the plea of not, after all?
>If your whole argument hinges on this one fact that you cannot prove actually happened,
As opposed to you, who is basing on the same coupled purely with yourown bigotry?
Please.
Hypocrisy is unbecoming

>Your justifying Trump pardoning a criminal co-conspirator because of this false narrative.
And you would have an innocent man hung because of your blind hatred.

>Also, on unrelated note. You can't use "Orange man bad" as a dismissal, when the orange man IS bad.
I disagree.
But thank you for admitting to your own irrationality.

>The orange man is currently, actievely trying to destroy democracy with phony lawsuits and claims of voter fraud without evidence.
Again, I disagree.  I have seen videos that suggest clear voter fraud. I've heard witness testimony. I've seen reports.
Its more than enough to warrant investigation, and thus shoot down the absurd blind notion that it's completely unfounded.

Again, I would suggest this is your own blind biases showing.

>You doing this is like trying to mock someone by saying "fire hot!" when they are pointing out you shouldn't stick your hand in fire place. Like, yeah, fire IS hot.  
The problem is, I disagree, and rather than demonstrate it objectively, all you can do is jump up and down and scream about how evil he is, and how we should just assume he's evil, in order to prove how evil he is.

People like yourself are why the NPC meme exists.

 No.8298

>>8296
And I want to make it clear here, I'm not saying you're an NPC for disliking Trump.
There's plenty of reason to.

I'm saying you are because "DO WHAT I TELL YOU OR ELSE YOUR SON WILL GO TO JAIL" is a blatant threat anyone should be able to understand.
Your hatred for Trump has blinded you to the point where you can't even abide by basic definitions.

You really ought to think on that.

 No.8303

>>8297
Trump lost. Please stay mad about that.

 No.8304

>>8303
Not an argument.  

 No.8305

>>8304
Oh, I'm done arguing with you. You just stated you believe the false voter fraud narrative, the one with no evidence beyond conspiracy theory, and the one that has been getting soundly trounced by courts over and over.

If you could believe something so insane, there's no point trying to reason with you. You've closed your mind to reason. So please, stay angry Trump lost. Because he did. Badly.

 No.8306

>>8305
Like I said, the numerous testimony warrants investigation to me. But I understand, you've already established you plug your ears at contrary information.

Again, the NPC meme exists for a reason.

 No.8307

>>8306
They've been hearing the cases, and systematically throwing them out for lack of evidence.

>NPC meme

Convincing yourself that your adversaries have no inner personal thoughts or being is what serial killers do. The fact that Trump's adherents use that is quite telling. Stay mad, please.

 No.8308

>>8307
No, they have mainly thrown out cases due to either not demonstrating enough to change the outcome, or not having the right standing, either due to jurisdictions or parties.
And again, there's video, testimony, and witnesses at this point more than enough to warrant investigation

Hell, do you remember the allegations against that judge Trump wanted to put on the Supreme Court a while back?
That apparently warranted an investigation and the lady making the allegations couldn't even give a date for it.
Is dozens of sworn statements not enough?

>Convincing yourself that your adversaries have no inner personal thoughts 
Its not that at all.
It's that you're predictable.

Anything Trump related will always end the same, no matter what.
Again, you've literally went against standard English definitions here, in order to stick to that.  
Can't even give the most base points.

 No.8310

>>8308
If you're so above only following trends and "being predictable" that you would accuse me of such, then demonstrate that. Criticize Trump. For anything.

 No.8315

>>8310
Easy. His gun policies are garbage, he's not done much of anything to curtail the corruption of federal agencies and has expanded a few despite those same agencies making obvious they'll use that power politically, and he's been too loose on the violation of rights following covid, by some states.  His selections to some positions are at best garbage, at worse outright counteractive to his goals. Most notably there Barr.
I'm also not really a fan of how little he's done following China's actions to Hong Kong, as well as inaction as it pertains to various corporations and organizations censoring on behalf of China. And for that matter, his doing nothing about Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as it pertains to political censorship generally.

There's some more complaints I could make, alongside calling him generally careless with what he says, but those are the biggest ones.
His red flag laws stance is probably the biggest for me, though.

 No.8323

File: 1608012325658.png (398.04 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1606237042345.png) ImgOps Google

>>8315
>His red flag laws stance is probably the biggest for me, though.
+1

I get the feeling that Trump doesn't actually believe in (or even understand) half the things that he does.  E.g., Trump has appointed excellent Supreme Court justices and lower-court judges, but he clearly doesn't appreciate the rule of law or the Bill of Rights, and he probably doesn't really understand originalism/textualism.

From Jan 2017 thru Oct 2020, I think Trump was better for the country than Hillary would have been, but his shenanigans about the elections are really starting to disturb me.  It is easy to allege fraud, and perhaps there really was fraud, but without clear and convincing evidence, the only thing to do is to accept the certified results.  The Constitution gives the several states plenary authority to pick their Electors, and that includes implementing a system for adjudicating allegations of fraud and mistakes.  Now that the Electors have cast their votes, the only thing to do should be to accept the decision of the Electors.

If the Dems are smart, their takeaway message from Trump's election shenanigans will be that Second Amendment is still necessary in modern times for removal of tyrants who try to usurp power.  I am a bit doubtful they will recognize this, but hope springs eternal.

 No.8324

>>8323
My trouble is, there seems to be more than enough to suggest something fishy happened.
You don't force out observers unless you've got something to hide, for instance, and there's a whole lot of suspicious stuff.
I understand the perspective that, without evidence, we can't do much, but, I think elections should be different.

Faith in elections is vital. A lack thereof is dangerous.  At the very least I think we need a thorough investigation.  
But the problem there is, I really don't think we can count on people who benefited from an election to investigate their own election.

>The Constitution gives the several states plenary authority to pick their Electors, 
While true, the constitution also gives how you're supposed to go about this stuff, and as Texas had brought forward, much like covid, the law was set aside in the name of some "emergency" without going through those constitutionally required channels.

All in all, I'm expecting Trump to still lose, and many states to start seriously looking at why they're in the union at all.
I'm hopeful of that. I do think secession is good for the country as a whole. But, I also recognize it could very easily get violent if they try to say no.
Still, even there, I consider sticking by to what seems to be a doomed state, at least with how this all went, worse than such an event.

 No.8346

>>8324
They didn't "force out" any observers. The Republican party had representatives watching in every state. When Trump says they "didn't allow his poll-watchers" he means the Proud Boys and other nutjobs, not the Republican party's actual representatives. Yeah, they aren't going to let gun-toting yahoos in. That's a good thing.

>All in all, I'm expecting Trump to still lose

He's already lost. Weeks ago.

 No.8347

>>8324
Also, leaving the union because you don't like who was elected would be the pettiest most childish thing ever. It would be hilarious. I say let Texas leave. It would be invaded by Mexico within hours.

 No.8352

>>8346
I disagree.  There seems to not only be numerous testimony under oath against your claim, but even video.
It does appear that observers were forced out, with at least one going as far as to have blocked the windows inside.

I have seen no evidence, nor have you provided any, to suggest that it was the "proud boys" being denied entry.
Given I've never even come across the allegation until now, I'm inclined to believe you've made it up

>>8347
Why?
Is it wrong for states who do not belive the election was conducted fair and honestly to leave a nation they believe has an illegitimate ruler?

Isn't that what we did,  when we left the British?

By the way, where is your response to my last post?
Do you resend the notion that i am incapable of criticizing Trump?
Or are you going to ignore that,  as you do with anything contradictory to your narrative?

 No.8354

>>8324
I know I've explained this to you before, but the idea that we need the 2nd amendment to deal with would-be dictators has been proven false by Trump and his followers. Because the people who would need protecting the most are against guns, and the ones who would be towing the line of a potential dictator, the ones talking about violently leaving the union (>>8324) are the ones who have guns. The 2nd Amendment is only going to facilitate a violent coup, not prevent it.

 No.8358

>>8352
Your "criticism" was just as insane as the belief that this wasn't a fair election, so I'm not going to bother. Hang onto your fantasy of leaving the US, because people like me aren't going to stop making the US a place people like you won't like, because immigrants are allowed and women have rights. Stay mad.

 No.8359

>>8354
>the people who would need protecting the most are against guns
Perhaps they should reconsider their opposition to the Second Amendment.

 No.8366

>>8354
Not everyone agrees Trump is a dictator.
That doesn't mean everyone supports dictators.  That just means you've failed to convince them he's one.

>the ones talking about violently leaving the union
I want to peacefully leave.
I do not think that they would let us.

I do not wish for violence.  I just am ready for it.

 No.8367

>>8358
Ah, so it's purely that you do not politically agree with me, and nothing more.  Pure TDS tribalism.

Well, at least you're revealing it clearly, for all to see

 No.8370

>>8324
>Faith in elections is vital. A lack thereof is dangerous.  At the very least I think we need a thorough investigation.  
I agree.  Just in the 2016 election, there are some things to investigate, and perhaps some individuals to prosecute.  But I doubt there was enough fraud to affect the results.  Going forward, there are many things we can do to ensure greater security and transparency for future elections, and that is definitely something worth doing.

>I do think secession is good for the country as a whole.
Eh, can't say I really agree.  The union brings many benefits, and secession would have a lot of costs and logistical issues.  I'm very worried about China becoming a superpower and perniciously influencing other countries.  If the United States divides up into different countries, each would be weaker against the Chinese Communist Party than the union was.

 No.8372

>>8358
>Your "criticism" was just as insane as the belief that this wasn't a fair election,
I disagree that it is an 'insane' belief.  There is no clear evidence that the election wasn't fair (other than questionable testimony), but it is possible to perpetrate election fraud in a way that doesn't leave behind evidence.  Ideally, election systems would be designed to transparently as possible provide evidence that every vote was casted by an eligible voter and counted correctly.  E.g., DRE systems without a VVPAT should be prohibited.  

 No.8375

>>8372
DRE systems *without a VVPAT

 No.8377

>>8372
>>8372
>There is no clear evidence that the election wasn't fair (other than questionable testimony)

But that's exactly why we should not believe it. If you cannot prove it happened, you cannot credibly claim it did. Even if it's POSSIBLE to do so without leaving evidence. It's also "possible" for me to dump out a bag of M&Ms on the table and have it land in five, neat color-coded piles. But the likelyhood of that is so low that it technically being possible should not normally be considered.

Trump isn't just claiming voter fraud was possible, he's claiming it happened. In widespread enough numbers to change the election results. But, as you just said, he has not provided any evidence to this claim beyond highly questionable personal testimonies. This makes his claims completely dubious. Not only that, but the claim also necessarily implies that the democratic party had the power to commit fraud at this level, but ONLY used it to put Biden in the presidential seat and not to also take back the Senate and to also lose some congressional seats. When you actually look at the reality of things, without blindly following the word of Trump as his followers do, the claims make no sense. We should not be entertaining the delusions of a narcissistic madman who cannot accept that his actions pissed off the majority of the country.

 No.8380

>>8370
Well since you bring up 2016, I will remind you that there was a massive 4 year long investigation into supposed election interference.
And I think it fair to say interference is not the same as what is alleged here, with it being much more serious.

It would only be fair if there was the same sort of thing for Biden as was done to Trump.

But, yes, I agree we need to radically improve voting securities.  The problem is, I think that is actively being eroded, not improved, at the moment.

 No.8382

>>8377
There is little evidence about whether the election had fraud, so, reasoning in a Bayesian framework, belief largely falls to one's priors.

Where I disagree with Trump is his attempts to ignore the certified results of the election.  Without strong evidence of fraud, it would be wrong to overturn the certified election results.  Otherwise, the results of every election could be thrown out based on vague or questionable allegations of fraud.

And in any case, it's moot now.  Biden was officially elected president this Monday by the Electoral College.  Even if there was fraud in the elections used to pick the Electors, the Constitution provides no remedy for it at this point in time.  The vote of the Electoral College is final and binding.

>the claim also necessarily implies that the democratic party had the power to commit fraud at this level, but ONLY used it to put Biden in the presidential seat and not to also take back the Senate and to also lose some congressional seats.
It's not necessarily a claim about the national Democratic Party.  There can be localized corruption and fraud.  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin didn't have Senate elections this year.  Michigan and Arizona elected Democratic senators.

 No.8401

>>8366
So let me get this straight. You would have allowed California, New York and all the other blue states to "peacefully" leave the union because Trump won because of Russian interference? Those places are major economic centers, and them leaving the union would have drastic repercussions on the economy.

If you wouldn't support them leaving the union, then your being a hypocrite for saying you want states to leave over imagined voter fraud, when the Russian interference was very real.

 No.8402

File: 1608157302158.png (357.29 KB, 720x1040, 9:13, 818e1ae007394e9dacc9551230….png) ImgOps Google

>>8401
Do you any credible evidence that Russia hacked any voting systems in 2016?  Or is this """interference""" merely something like "Russia persuaded voters than Hillary was worse than Trump"?

 No.8405

>>8402
Your huge scare quotes around interference seems to imply that using the media to spread blatantly false information about about candidate somehow isn't legitimately interfering with the electoral process. Which you know, is bullshit because it is. But it did go beyond that, yes. I will look for what information I can find, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm limited to what info is publically available.

 No.8406

File: 1608171022608.jpg (257.59 KB, 800x1100, 8:11, a3f825ea1566f0c11d3d068e47….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8405
>Your huge scare quotes around interference seems to imply that using the media to spread blatantly false information about about candidate somehow isn't legitimately interfering with the electoral process. Which you know, is bullshit because it is.
So you would say "Trump interfered with the 2016 electoral process" because he lied about himself and about Hillary during the televised presidential debates?  I personally wouldn't speak like that, and my guess is that most other people wouldn't either.  

 No.8421

>>8401
Yes, I would.
And yes, they would have repercussions.
That's irrelevant to me.
Pragmatic concerns are not moral concerns. They should be solved through negotiation, not through immoral acts.

I do find it funny that people believe the whole Russia thing are the same folk who are insisting election fraud is a deranged conspiracy theory that's destroying faith in our elections, though.
You'd think people would have a bit more self awareness than that.

 No.8422

>>8405
You mean like the opposition-paid "research" that resulted in a four year long investigation which lead nowhere and resulted in no evidence of any kind for collusion?

Yeah, I guess there was a lot of interference against Trump in 2016, now that you mention it.

 No.8423

>>8406
Well there's a clear difference between one person telling lies and a concerted effort by an organization or government to spread misinformation.

>>8422
That's not what happened. The Republican lead senate refused to hear the case. Evidence did not even get a chance to be presented.

 No.8424

>>8421
The "Russia thing" has actual evidence, not a bunch of drunk yahoos talking about the 'Biden crime family" while wearing tanktops talking about their love of beer.

 No.8425

>>8423
Yeah, no. They had hearing after hearing, and four long years of investigation. The man who did that investigation said himself there was no evidence.

>>8424
There's literally nothing, mate. You talk about 'Conspiracy theories", and how crazy other people are, while spouting the same sort of nonsense.
You're a hypocrite. A blind hypocrite, who can't see past their own hyperpartisan politics.

You haven't bothered to prove a single one of your claims this entire thread, and that's simply because you cannot. When you're countered, you change the subject, or just plug your ears.
You're a sheep, repeating the mantras of your betters because you're incapable of thinking for yourself.

 No.8426

>>8425
> The man who did that investigation said himself there was no evidence.

Source.

>>8425
You know, it's painfully obvious you only feel this way because you support the right and Trump so feverishly. If this had been Hillary or Obama, you'd be the one saying that it's all a cover-up by the illuminati or whatever. It's completely pointless to talk to someone who has drank the conservative Kool-Aid so hard they can't see reality anymore, because facts bounce off of them like bullets from Superman. I'm just glad that cooler heads prevailed and we'll finally have competent people in charge again.

 No.8427

>>8426
> you support the right and Trump so feverishly.
See >>8315
(I'm assuming that Sweet Raven is the same person as Peaceful Ferret.)

 No.8429

>>8426
What, did you miss the massive investigation that ended up going nowhere, with the only defense the guy conducting it could give being a lack of evidence isn't lack of guilt?

If you honestly are that ignorant of basic information as it pertains to these political events, there's not really much point in continuing much further.
I had presumed you at least kept up on that most basic level.

>You know, it's painfully obvious you only feel this way because you support the right and Trump so feverishly.
I've already explained why I don't even like the man.
I think his optimistic ignorance of just how deep the corruption goes practically doomed us as a nation.  

> If this had been Hillary or Obama, you'd be the one saying that it's all a cover-up by the illuminati or whatever.
Based on what?
Your own assholosh interpretation of me based solely on your bigotry?

I wouldn't because I haven't. You're delusional.

>It's completely pointless to talk to someone who has drank the conservative Kool-Aid so hard they can't see reality anymore, because facts bounce off of them like bullets from Superman.
This is more reflective of you than I.
Especially considering you've been repeatedly asked to back up your claims, and all you have thus far been able to do is change the subject or revert to insults like a coward.

 No.8432

>>8429
It didn't "go nowhere". They found numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign, including numerous guilty pleas and convictions. Not only that, A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice. The language you are using seems to imply that since Trump could not be charged, nothing law-breaking or corrupt happened. This is false. The Mulleur report specifically says that it "does not exonerate" Trump. You cannot claim that it does.

(https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report)

But I wanted a source on "the man who did that investigation" having "said himself there was no evidence." Who do you mean and what exactly did he say? You've already shown your willingness to be intellectually dishonest on this topic.

The rest of the nonsense you typed isn't worth commenting on. Just more "I am rubber and you are glue" retorts of supposed bigotry and playing the victim. Please stay angry.

 No.8437

>>8432
The best that they could find is "obstruction" of a partisan investigation based upon fake information quite literally fabricated by their opposition.
They had to lie to the courts to get the warrant to tap Trump and other's phones, and they had to push numerous never-before-used technicalities to actually get any effect.

All that you've succeeded in doing is demonstrate the corruption of the federal government, the uselessness of our judicial system, and how our law enforcement agencies are little more than ghestapo goosesteppers unconcerned with justice or integrity.

At the end of the day, it is an objective fact that they were unable to prove Trump collided with Russia to win the 2016 election.
This is a flat fact.
You couldn't show this, so you went to other, unrelated items.
I do not care if trump was uncooperative with their partisan and politically motivated "investigation".
Its entirely irrelevant to me. Especially when we've seen with Flynn what happened when you cooperate.
They will lie to you, mislead you, threaten your family, whatever it takes to get their way, justice and law be dammed.

>But I wanted a source on "the man who did that investigation" having "said himself there was no evidence." Who do you mean and what exactly did he say? You've already shown your willingness to be intellectually dishonest on this topic.
As have you. You seem to do little event like, mislead, misrepresent, or otherwise behave in an exceptionally dishonest manner. It seems you are a person with very little moral character.

None of the less, since I am not you, I can actually prove my claims. Here you go
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47694839

>The rest of the nonsense you typed isn't worth commenting on. Just more "I am rubber and you are glue" retorts of supposed bigotry and playing the victim. Please stay angry
As though you have not done the same. You are an objective come off actually so come up big. You have made your position clear in this thread. You have stated out right that regardless of anything else, you assume the worst of your opponents. This is an objective reality that you should accept. Your refusal to do so demonstrates that you are little more than a cultist, lacking the most basic level of self control.

 No.8442

>>8437
It seems very convenient that anything that goes against Trump is the product of some ridiculous conspiracy.

Your reasoning here is ridiculously reductive. People working within Trump's campaign was shown to have colluded with Russia and that Russia did make efforts to influence the election. The also show that Trump did things that would be considered obstruction of justice by any reasonable person.  This is not the same as the investigation "going nowhere" or "being a hoax". It also does not exonerate Trump, and directly says that. It just means they could not produce enough evidence to convict. Also, it's hilarious how you think a lack of sufficient evidence of a direct connection to the known and verifiable criminal actions of the people running his fucking campaign exonerates Trump here (which again, it does not, and the report clearly states this) but the complete lack of evidence for voter fraud in the 2020 election doesn't dissuade you from believing in it. You are completely detached from reality and I'm glad people like you lost.

 No.8456

>>8442
I could literally say the exact same thing to you. The differences, you've already gotten your long investigation for your theories, I just want what is fair.
If we can spend 4 years on a wild goose Chase that reveals nothing, we should be able to do the same for what appears to be legitimate election fraud.

>People working within Trump's campaign was shown to have colluded with Russia and that Russia did make efforts to influence the election.
I have not seen any evidence of it, your links had not provided any for this claim, and as pointed out come up there seems to be explicit denial him what you claim here, in that there was no evidence for this argument.

Rather, it appears as though you are making things up, because you are a hyperpartisan who is cultishly devoted to your own work sense of reality common regardless of evidence.

>The also show that Trump did things that would be considered obstruction of justice by any reasonable person.
As any reasonable person would do if they were confronted by a witch hunt by hyper partisans come up based off a false information, fabricated dossiers, and misleading testimonies.
Great example is the spying that was done by the Obama administration on trump. In Nixon's time come of this got the man impeached. Apparently it's acceptable to you. I consider that a significant departure of reasonable standards within this country

> It also does not exonerate Trump, and directly says that.
If we are going to presume guilt without evidence, why should I care about anything you have to say? You are a child rapist.

>Also, it's hilarious how you think a lack of sufficient evidence of a direct connection to the known and verifiable criminal actions of the people running his fucking campaign exonerates Trump here (which again, it does not, and the report clearly states this) but the complete lack of evidence for voter fraud in the 2020 election doesn't dissuade you from believing in it
I disagree both with the claims of the 1st portion, as well as the claims of a lack of evidence. Rather it seems that there is a lot. It's just that nobody actually wants to honestly engage with it.
We have piles of testimony at this point, numerous videos, data, and more,   yet you refuse to even hold an investigation.

There was far less on trump, and yet we had a 4 year long investigation. Why is this case different? Why does this deserve no investigation at all, while that needed a full on which hunt?
Are you really going to pretend to me that this is a fair and adjust system at play?
If so, you are either hopelessly naive, or willfully ignorant.

 No.8555

>>8456
>we should be able to do the same for what appears to be legitimate election fraud

Perhaps the fraud trials would have gone better if they had alleged fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuwl2p9TIDE
As it is, they were predominantly arguing disagreements over statutes, which you're generally supposed to finish before the election so it doesn't look like you're picking and choosing districts where your opponent won.

But, uh. The court doesn't do investigations. You're supposed to be done with that by the time you press charges, especially in a civil trial. Perhaps in a criminal trial it is expected that a third party empowered by the court handles evidentiary matters, but that calls for a criminal complaint, of which none were submitted to the court as I understand it.

Nobody in particular was actually accused of anything, so there wasn't a whole lot to investigate.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]