No.7348[Last 50 Posts]
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?
As an independent I have to say that the republicans have used up my attention span for "We have damning evidence!" I heard this story already. If you have evidence give it to a law court, because I'm not the right person to give it to. There are probably a hundred technicalities and contextual issues that this has to be considered in context of to make it look either good or bad and I really don't care enough to keep it straight.
Somebody had associates that had dubiously appropriate communications with Eastern European leaders many years ago that have been mostly covered up and even if technically legal they should have known better. I have to say, dubiously grounded semi-official improprieties of the past aren't my hot button issue this year for some reason.
Agreed 100%. This election, to me, hinges on three things:
1. Coronavirus in terms of health and wellness.
2. Health care in general.
3. Jobs and the economy w.r.t the coronavirus' effects.
It's not as if nothing else matters, like I'm one to really oppose banning assault weapons and am kind of pissed off at how popular the idea has gotten lately, but those three suck up the oxygen just about totally for me.
File: 1603041789661.jpg (36.67 KB, 348x342, 58:57, 1498613385167.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7356>Both aren't actually anything real,
Huh? I'm fairly certain that Hillary's alleged emails were real. And while there's a chance that the alleged Hunter Biden emails might have been fabricated, so far it's looking like they're real.
"real" in the sense that Hillary had used email at some point in her life, but they didn't find any classified information or anything law-breaking.
Emails existing dont mean anything, they have to prove unlawful activity.
>>7358>so far it's looking like they're real
I honestly know nothing about this topic so I'm curious what about them makes you believe that.
Not to suggest it's impossible, I'm just skeptical of *anything* that breaks in a tabloid as a rule until it's corroborated.
I think he took it completely literally to mean "emails existed" not "the emails actually proved anyone broke the law". But I don't wanna speak for him.>>7364
And it was pretty hypocritical for Trump to go after Biden for supposedly using his position to get his son a better job when half of Trump's staff is his own family.
File: 1603168936356.jpeg (609.73 KB, 1600x1200, 4:3, rozen_maiden_suiseiseki_g….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>7349>My guess is 'virtually no influence'
Yeah, it's looking that. I guess Trump has so many scandals of his own that the Hunter/Burisma thing is small potatoes anyway.>>7353>This election, to me, hinges on three things...
For me, I'd add another: threats to the institutions and norms of our constitutional republic. Trump has been a major offender here, but Biden/Kamala court packing might tip the scale. I'm gonna hold off filling my ballot until Joe Biden answers the question. Trump's rhetoric about locking up his political opponents also deeply concerns me, and any indications that it's not merely empty rhetoric (as it was in 2016) will switch my vote to Biden even if he does endorse court packing.>>7364
I guess I kinda agree. Even if it turns out that Hunter Biden enjoyed child sex slaves courtesy of Burisma --- well, Hunter Biden isn't the one running for president. And it doesn't look like Joe Biden had very much involvement in this scandal.>>7369>I think he took it completely literally to mean "emails existed" not "the emails actually proved anyone broke the law". But I don't wanna speak for him.
Yes, that is what I meant.
>>7369>And it was pretty hypocritical for Trump to go after Biden for supposedly using his position to get his son a better job when half of Trump's staff is his own family.
Exactly. And that's on top of, business-related scandal wise, how Trump cheats on his taxes. He hires illegal aliens to work for him too. He has long standing ties to the U.S. mafia as well.
Put all of the personal stuff such as how Trump likes to abuse women aside and just focus on his business dealings? Trump remains a scumbag's scumbag. Look at he full picture, and honestly Trump comes across as a villainous cartoon character that somebody who passionately hates capitalism, Christianity, the elderly, men, and white people would invent in a propaganda tract. A rich pasty doddering old fool almost sweating 100$s as he walks because Jesus blessed him so.>>7371
I don't agree with your relative weighing of the issues, personally, but I concur that threats to institutions and norms are pretty damn important. I don't think that the damage is permanent. But then I'm one who's not naturally a pessimist, eh.
Possibly, but I doubt it.
I think most people already realized there was a clear case of corruption in that case.
And, those who don't aren't likely to care about something the MSM and major social media is either ignoring or censoring.>>7349
This is about what I figured.
While I disagree with the "anti christ" comment, that does seem to be the case for Democrats and Trump.
I am convinced nothing Biden does would convince those who regard Trump as the second coming of Hitler to vote for someone else.
Independent is pretty well regarded as a waste, unfortunately. So they see it as Biden or Nazi Germany.
Do you really have that much faith in our court systems?
I can tell you, given what is happening to Flynn, the justice system is exceptionally flawed.
And I can say from personal experience, judges do not actually give a damn about justice. Just preserving the authority of the state.
We ought to all be able to agree, getting the guy investigating your son fired is a conflict of interests, if absolutely nothing else.
If they aren't real, why did Hilary nuke her servers, and Biden vehemently deny what we know now factually occurred?
It's fine if you don't think it matters, but to pretend there was nothing there is nonsense.
And of course I suppose you're going to also tell me that Trump was absolutely colluding with Russia, right?
That wasn't what he was going after Biden for.
You've clearly just not been paying attention
The issue is Biden withheld money from Ukraine unless they fired the guy who was actively investigating the company his son got hired for purely because of his connection to Biden.
This narrative is simply false, and suggests you're not actually listening to what Trump has said, but what people who've had a vested interest in misrepresenting what he's said have claimed.
I suppose next you're going to tell me he called White supremacists very fine people.>>7371
Out of curiosity, does the similar action actually done by Democrats in regards to Trump and his people bother you, as well?
They've harassed Flynn for ages now, and evidence seems to be that the FBI outright fabricated the case, intentionally, to try to get him fired.
Oh, or how about the investigation on Trump started by Obama was built on a now thoroughly discredited dossier that the source of, as I understand, wasn't revealed to the judge giving the order.
Or, hell, how about the attempt to impeach Trump off of what seems to be by all accounts at this point nothing more than a conspiracy theory?
The level of hypocrisy from the left is exceptionally irritating.
I don't even like Trump particularly. His stance on guns is garbage, between the bump stock nonsense and the red flag laws, and he's not stopped the lockdowns. He's also been terribly light handed on the corruption he was supposed to weed out.
It's annoying that I keep having to defend him on stuff that really shouldn't be the big issue
File: 1603316473449.png (420.02 KB, 600x660, 10:11, 1603296109952.png) ImgOps Google
>>7383>The issue is Biden withheld money from Ukraine unless they fired the guy who was actively investigating the company his son got hired for purely because of his connection to Biden.
I'm pretty sure that Hunter's connection to Burisma wasn't a significant factor in Joe Biden's pressuring the firing of the prosecutor. There were enough legitimate concerns.
Of course, that's not to say that Hunter Biden was blameless. On the contrary, his decision to sit on Burisma's board was highly questionable. His mere presence there probably discouraged the new prosecutor from going after Burisma.>>7383
I don't know much about the Flynn thing. But all the Russia stuff seemed to be the Dems making a mountain out of a molehill. There was a lot of noise about Russia "interfering with election" but no actual evidence. Closest thing was Russia spreading propaganda to influence voters' choices. Of course, that's not to say that our election security is any good. On the contrary, I'd say that touchscreen voting with a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) is inherently insecure. Mail-in ballots can
be done securely, but I have doubts that the actual implementation used by states is particularly secure.>Or, hell, how about the attempt to impeach Trump off of what seems to be by all accounts at this point nothing more than a conspiracy theory?
Eh, I read the transcript of Trump's call, and it seemed quite damning for him. At best, severe incompetence. At worst, corruption. If Joe Biden hadn't been running for president, I highly doubt Trump would have been so interested in Hunter's affairs in Ukraine.>The level of hypocrisy from the left is exceptionally irritating.
I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. E.g., the Republicans' explanation of why they refused to hear Merrick Garland, contrasted with how they're rushing to seat Amy Coney Barrett. (For the record, I think both Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett are very highly qualified nominees. I prefer Amy Coney Barrett's judicial philosophy.)
And for hypocrisy on the left, well, pic related.
The FBI investigated Hillary's emails throughly. Thousands of them. And then they were investigated a second time right before the election just to tarnish her character. And both times they found that while she acted carelessly, no laws were broken.
It's pretty clear Trump colluded with Russia to anyone with eyes, but they didn't have enough evidence to convict him of it. >>7383>and suggests you're not actually listening to what Trump has said,
I tend not to, as he has a tendency to tell outright lies and give bad advice like injecting bleach into your veins.
The Hunter Biden thing is just a distraction, when Trump is the one who was withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on a political opponent.
>>7386>I'm pretty sure that Hunter's connection to Burisma wasn't a significant factor in Joe Biden's pressuring the firing of the prosecutor.
Possible. But whether or not it is, it's a conflict of interest.
I'm fine with an investigation into the matter.
And like you say, it may well be that Biden isn't at fault, it's just his son. But, that's still something to investigate, and I would hope, punish. Though American law does put a lot of covers for the corrupt, so, who knows.>Eh, I read the transcript of Trump's call, and it seemed quite damning for him.
I did as well. Could you clarify the particular issue?
It seemed to me, as I had read, he wasn't even the one who brought it up, and it certainly didn't strike me as tied to any particular benefit to Ukraine.
Oh, and of course, Biden did exactly what they claim Trump did, anyway.>E.g., the Republicans' explanation of why they refused to hear Merrick Garland, contrasted with how they're rushing to seat Amy Coney Barrett.
Sure. I don't disagree with that. I'll call them hypocrites just as easily.
I don't like the republican establishment politicians. They pretty much all suck universally.
You'll excuse me if I do not really consider the FBI to be a credible organization at this point.
Well, to be fair, it isn't really "at this point". Stuff like Ruby Ridge have rather thoroughly placed my trust in them into the dumpster a long time ago.
Also, isn't it more than a little hypocritical to say Hillary is innocent, but Trump is totally guilty? >The Hunter Biden thing is just a distraction, when Trump is the one who was withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on a political opponent.
As opposed to Biden withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for the removal of the guy investigating his son...
I don't even agree that's what happened. It seems to run contrary to what information I've actually seen. But, I understand how someone who listens to only the biased news who love to omit or outright fabricate things might think that.
>>7392>You'll excuse me if I do not really consider the FBI to be a credible organization at this point.
There's no reason not to. >Also, isn't it more than a little hypocritical to say Hillary is innocent, but Trump is totally guilty?
You know how easy it is to flip that around? It's hypocritical of you to imply Hillary is guilt and Trump is innocent. Especially when you consider one was accused of being careless with emails and one was accused of trying to blackmail a foreign leader. A much worse crime.>As opposed to Biden...
Good thing he didn't do that and the claim is unsubstantiated. Whereas we have recording s of Trump trying to withhold aid for personal gain...
File: 1603411797426.png (1.11 MB, 640x1280, 1:2, 1507134034568.png) ImgOps Google
>>7391>>Eh, I read the transcript of Trump's call, and it seemed quite damning for him. >I did as well. Could you clarify the particular issue?
I am thinking of this part:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
I ask whether Trump would have made those remarks if Biden weren't running for president. I doubt he would have. Thus, I am left to conclude that those remarks came from a corrupt partisan motive rather than a legitimate law-enforcement motive. Although I guess this is highly subjective, and I can see reasonable people disagreeing, based on their priors about Trump.
As I recall, though, Trump wasn't the one who even brought it up. But besides that, it seems a completely fair thing to investigate
And again; look at what was done to Trump.
If that's wrong, the Democrats are horrible people given the whole Russia conspiracy nonsense. Same for Obama and his spying on Trump and his campaign during the election.
Especially since it appears to have been done on completely fabricated pretenses.
If we're going to condemn Trump for, in passing after someone else brought it up, saying someone should investigate a case of corruption, we've got a lot of folk on the left to condemn as well for doing a whole lot worse.
>>7420>As I recall, though, Trump wasn't the one who even brought it up.
First mention of Biden seems to be from Trump in the transcript:https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html>But besides that, it seems a completely fair thing to investigate
Perhaps in the abstract. But Trump's request really feels politically motivated, rather than a routine law-enforcement request. >the whole Russia conspiracy nonsense
I'm pretty sure that Russian disinformation campaigns really did exist. I'd say that claims of 'collusion' with Putin were vastly overblown, though.>we've got a lot of folk on the left to condemn as well
I agree with that. There's plenty of dishonest tactics from both parties.
>>7439> But Trump's request really feels politically motivated, rather than a routine law-enforcement request.
Maybe, but again, that means the entire Democrat establishment is, if that is your standard for corruption, far, far more corrupt.>I'm pretty sure that Russian disinformation campaigns really did exist
In the same way American ones do in countless other foreign elections, sure. Or for that matter, how half of our "allies" do during our elections.
Nonetheless, mere Russian typical state funded operations everyone does was not the focus.
The focus was clearly on the collusion narrative, and for that matter, it seems to be a complete and total fabrication, to the point where the justification to spy on Trump was outright fabricated by partisan organizations, and then lied about when brought for the warrant.
Again; if Trump is corrupt for investigating someone for something that appears to have actually happened, the whole of the Democrats, and Obama's administration especially, are far, far dirtier.
Personally, I am of the firm stance it isn't wrong to hang someone by their own rope.
If we're going to waste years on an investigation which seems to be based on nothing other than political interests, I do not see why we shouldn't do the same when something appears to have actually happened, even if political interests are involved.
That all depends if people believe Bidens are as stupid as Trumps.
Is there any evidence that the laptop is really Hunter's? Is there any evidence he typically takes such poor care of his data?
Its hard to know; im so used to stupid im not what i believe anymore
>>8127>Because it was mostly lies fabricated to smear Biden
Do you have a source for that? IIRC, they used the DKIM signatures to authenticate the emails. In terms of implicating Joe
Biden, however, it was a big nothingburger, and Hunter
Biden isn't running for any office.
I'm just curious. I remember Carlson saying he would have damning evidence "tomorrow". I have no trust of Carlson but Hunter and Joe are also sus as fuck. It seemed excessively convenient that he'd just randomly forget a stack of government laptops at a computer repair store that apparently has a policy of picking through the emails of their clients with a fine tooth comb and handing over anything suspicious to the National Enquirer.
But stranger things happen and it's also entirely possible that the cliffnotes version of events looks far more suspicious than it is. Discrediting an unexpected source in the national narrative isn't too difficult.
Issues with Hunter have been known for a long while, and as we have seen with Flynn, the democrats are fine with politically targeted judicial practices built on lies, intimidation, and corruption at every level.
Were I in his shoes, I'd do the same.
Micheal Flynn actually broke the law. That's why Trump pardoned him. All of these allegations against Hunter are completely unfounded. Unless you can conjure up the "evidence" Tucker Carlson "lost in the mail".
And none of that has anything to do with the fact that going after someone's kid with fake accusations while abusing your power to protect your own from real crimes is hypocritical.
If you genuinely believe that, I would say you've paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to that case.
We have the objective facts of that particular case, we know what was done, we have the notes from the FBI, and what they said, did, and why they were there. We also have the information for why he initially plead guilty, as well as the conflict of interest of his original legal team.
Either you're ignorant of the circumstances, or okay with dishonest legal practices so long as it is for partisan political agendas agreeable to you. >And none of that has anything to do with the fact that going after someone's kid with fake accusations
You not liking them doesn't mean that they are fake.
Again, these issues have been around long before Biden was running for president.
If you've looked in to the matter, this fact would be rather obvious. >while abusing your power to protect your own from real crimes is hypocritical.
How is it hypocritical to protect your family from people who are objectively willing to use dishonest tactics to attack you, including going as far as to fabricate evidence in order to spy on you and your campaign?
Given the conduct of the democrats up to this point, I would do the exact same thing.
And in any case, pointing out issues in someone else has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with protecting your loved ones. These are separate matters.
I wouldn't call someone a hypocrite for not gambling while they put peppers on pizza.
Then provide evidence. I'd love to see it, but Tucker Carlson lost it in the mail, remember? >Including going as far as to fabricate evidence
Nothing was fabricated. You're just making stuff up now. >>8241
That has nothing to do with the email situation we are discussing. Why are you bringing that up?
>>8253>That has nothing to do with the email situation we are discussing.
The thread is about the leaked data from the laptop, including the photos, which do contain evidence of illegal drug usage.>Why are you bringing that up?
Because you said "Micheal Flynn actually broke the law" in >>8231
as if Hunter Biden didn't break the law.
Hunter Biden had a drug problem in the past, but is clean now. This was never a secret. If these emails were supposed to prove that, they didn't need to go through the trouble.
I never said Hunter Biden has never done anything wrong... I am honestly confused what you are going off here about. I thought we were talking about Hunter potentially accepting money from a forging power, which seems to be completely fabricated.
If the two of you are talking about Hunter Biden doing drugs. Yes, he did. Doesn't really reflect on Joe Biden, though so it's a non-issue.
The drug thing was what I was referring to.
I don't know about anything along 'foreign power' other than the whole Ukraine thing looks super suspect, but Hunter has definitely broken the law as far as drugs go, so I don't see why it's hypocritical to call him out on that, while protecting your family from people who do not seem to care whether or not someone's actually broken the law.
Hunter had a drug problem. He's since gotten off them. Either way, that does not reflect on president-elect Joe Biden in any way, so bringing it up is being petty.
Also, it's completely false that anyone on the Democratic party "does not care whether or not someone has actually broken the law". Your example was Micheal Flynn, who Trump just pardoned. Why would he pardon an innocent man? The pardon itself implies guilt. So I'm not sure who or what you are referring to.
Pettiness does not equate to hypocrisy.>Also, it's completely false that anyone on the Democratic party "does not care whether or not someone has actually broken the law".
Considering the things done following, and for that matter just before, Trump's election, I do not believe you.
They literally got a warrant to spy on him based on false pretenses. As in, straight up falsifying evidence in order to claim that the individual they were wanting a warrant to spy on wasn't actually a CIA source.>Why would he pardon an innocent man? The pardon itself implies guilt.
Absolutely not. That is frankly, plain and simple nonsense, of the highest order. I can only assume you even think this based purely on partisan politics, as anyone, anywhere, should be able to quickly see why A, pardonning someone doesn't mean they're guilty, and B, there are reasons beyond guilt to pardon someone.
Courts are not infallible.
They can do horrible stuff.
Just look at some of the history around black people during the civil rights era.
Likewise, a continued campaign by a corrupt judge to attack an innocent man beyond the scope of that judge's jurisdiction, very likely ruining the guy's life, is more than enough reason to want to pardon him while you still have that capability.
Again, this is a case where objectively the FBI lied
in order to get this case. The thing is, the judge doesn't give a damn, and despite this, again, objective fact
that the entire premise is false, despite the fact that the prosecution has dropped the case and that the stipulations of the US's legal system requires a separation of powers between prosecution and judges, he's still suffering through this court case.
I can only assume here that you know absolutely nothing about this case, and just went "Orange man pardonned him. He must be bad guy"
That's just plain not how it works.
But alright, I get it, you've got no argument other than 'NO HE BAD LOOK HE PARDONED'.
You know nothing about the case, and rather than look in to it, you've made your decision based on the orange man being bad.
Pardonning doesn't equate to guilt, because the system around law is not always just.
It's really that simple. The idea that pardon = guilt is simple ignorance on your part.
What isn't "how it works"? The only way what your saying makes any sense is if you believe Micheal Flynn was somehow wrongly accused and sentenced and Trump is somehow the hero. That's insane conspiracy-mongering with no basis in the truth.
There's no reason to argue about this with you because you aren't even giving any evidence to your claims. You just keep saying "He was innocent because the courts are corrupt." without backing that up. So yeah, i'm gonna be flippant with you unless you actually give something beyond conspiracy.
Pardons do not equate to guilt. That is what I mean isn't how it works. >The only way what your saying makes any sense is if you believe Micheal Flynn was somehow wrongly accused
Yes, because that is the case, as is plainly evidenced by the notes of the agents he supposedly lied to. >and sentenced
He wasn't sentenced. The trial was ongoing despite the fact that the prosecution dropped the case. >That's insane conspiracy-mongering with no basis in the truth.
You say this out of ignorance, as you've already demonstrated you know nothing of the case.
Besides, you're claiming Trump pardoned him because he was guilty. That's certainly a conspiracy theory right there, as you've not based that on what had actually been done or said.
And of course I'd be very willing to wager you're fine with the Russia hoax conspiracy, anyway. >There's no reason to argue about this with you because you aren't even giving any evidence to your claims.
And you have?
You've just insisted he's guilty without evidence. Is that how it works now? Are you a pedophile because I say so, and we presume guilt?
If you bothered to look into the case, the evidence would be apparent to you. The fact that you have not come is rather self evident, as you have not yet even demonstrate a single thing about the case. You have not made any claims about the case. Your entire argument is based solely on the pardoning. Pardons do not equate to guilt. Your entire premise is built on plain and simple objective ignorance, and nothing more. Ignorance filled off on prejudice, no less.
You are a prime example of the NPC meme.
You see orange man, and don't bother looking further.
He is bad because orange man
Let's start with this:
Do you know what Flynn was being investigated for?
Do you know what he was charged with?
Do you know the requirements for that charge?
Given your conduct thus far, I'm willing to wager you don't even know this much.
But maybe I can get you to look it up, and actually think about it.
>>8271>Innocent people don't need pardons.
You have more faith in the criminal justice system then it deserves. There are many cases of people on death row who were proven innocent by DNA evidence. Many prosecutors abuse the plea-deal system and pre-trial detention.
(My comments in this post are in relation to your statement standing alone; I am not talking about Flynn's specific situation.)
>>8275>Do you know what Flynn was being investigated for?
Conversations he had with a Russian ambassador. >Do you know what he was charged with?
Lying to the FBI about said conversations. Something he plead guilty to. >Do you know the requirements for that charge?
Having lied to the FBI. Which he did, and admitted to doing.>>8276
In general this might be true. But this is Trump we are talking about. He's already offering pardons to all his criminal buddies as we speak.
>>8277>Conversations he had with a Russian ambassador.
Incorrect. He was being investigated in regards to the Logan Act, of which it's worth noting not a single person has ever been convicted over, and of which not a single person had been charged under this in over 100 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
This fact alone ought to make you understand the political nature of this case. None the less, talking to someone is not illegal, the question is, in regards to this law that has not been used in over 100 years, if Flynn was negotiating on behalf of the United States without being a representative of the United States.
Incidentally, being a part of the transition team would constitute authority to speak on behalf of the United States, regardless. As you would of course expect. >Lying to the FBI about said conversations.
And do you know what that lie was? Do you have the quote and the context?>Something he plead guilty to.
True, in order to avoid the legal threats against his family, under the advice of a legal firm with a conflict of interest, under the supposition that the punishment would be lesser to the cost of attempting to combat it.
Do you think guilty pleas equate to actual guilt?
If so, you are exceptionally naive.>Having lied to the FBI.
Incorrect. It's not illegal simply to lie to the FBI.
The requirements of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 is the lie must be, 1, knowingly made, and two, material to the investigation.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001>Which he did
Incorrect.>and admitted to doing.
Again, if you believe a guilty pleas is a sign of guilt, you are exceptionally naive.
It's very easy to choose to plea guilty when the prosecution is threatening your son.https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/24/michael-flynn-ex-lawyers-statements-207025>But this is Trump we are talking about
"ORANGE MAN BAD"
This video gives a good breakdown if you don't have time to actually look in to the case.
Funnily enough, looks like there's another update on this case, despite the pardon.
This guy really doesn't know when to let up. But at least he's done a great job of demonstrating why the American legal system is flawed, judges are granted far too much power, and the entire system needs to be uprooted and reworked if we're to ensure justice is actually done for anyone.
So if I threaten your family unless you say "I am a pedophile", that's all that is necessary, you are a pedophile despite how I got that "confession"?
I do not belive you are honestly representing your own beliefs here. >>8283
Probably why it's not actually ever resulted in anything.
For the best i think.
>>8282>>8282>"Admitting to doing something isn't proof you did it." Yeah, this conversation's not gonna go anywhere.
Google "false confession".
Or if you are referring to plea deals, that is a subject that you should educate yourself on. American plea-deal system is notoriously currupt.
If you want to argue that Michael Flynn is guilty of a serious crime, you would do well to present actual direct evidence.
He admitted to doing it. You are literally asking me for evidence that would belong in FBI custody. Of course I don't have that, but it's a straw-man argument. Micheal Flynn is guilty because he admitted to doing the thing he was charged with, and Trump came in an pardoned him because he's pardoning all his partners in crime. >>8284
Who is "they"? The lizard people? the qAnon pedophiles? The resurrected corpse of Karl Marx? You're creating this fictional conspiracy just to justify Trump's actions of pardoning a criminal he had ties to. It's completely silly.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
>>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.
DRE systems *without
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
File: 1608157302158.png (357.29 KB, 720x1040, 9:13, 818e1ae007394e9dacc9551230….png) ImgOps Google
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>8425> The man who did that investigation said himself there was no evidence.
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.
>>8426> you support the right and Trump so feverishly.
(I'm assuming that Sweet Raven is the same person as Peaceful Ferret.)
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.
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.
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.
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 gohttps://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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>8555>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.
I would suggest this is the big problem.
The state does not investigate itself. Not for things that matter. Everyone's forced to dedicate their own personal resources, while still lacking the abilities law enforcement can bring forth in their investigations.
It's almost like the entire system is built to ensure corruption is near impossible to uproot and show light on.
There are actually multiple independent oversight agencies as well as mechanisms for people who thought there was fraud to trigger an investigation which has to go through certain mandatory steps and then publish their findings. All that happened. Multiple times. Even a recount. Even multiple recounts. I don't know what more investigation was wanted.
I'm just saying that if you wanted the court to investigate it more, courts don't do that.
I want the federal government to investigate it, as was done in 2016 over a conspiracy theory quite literally created off of partisan interest funding a dossier which had no evidence behind it.
We've had hundreds of sworn statements at this point. It seems to be an objective fact as far as I've seen that ballot watchers were prevented from doing their job. Likewise, states ignored their constitutional requirements, and changed restrictions on voting without going through the required channels, without consequence.
I will not be happy until the individuals responsible for the objective mistakes that have occurred, that we know for a fact have occurred, are at the very least removed from their position and barred from ever doing that again,.
I do not care if they try to hide behind 'glitches' or 'mistakes' or orders from someone else, they should not be granted the trust to fail like that again, and throw our entire democracy at risk because of their actions.
Yet, nothing like that, at all, seems to have occurred. All that we get is time and time again they say "Well, it's not enough
evidence of fraud", or worse "You just don't have standing to complain about this".
What is the point of law enforcement if they do nothing about matters of the sanctity and trustworthiness of the nation?
If we do not have a system that ensures it is just and fair, what's the moral justification for the system at all?
Why not secede from what appears to many a blatantly unjust, untrustworthy, and corrupt state?
Why listen to the demands of what appears, to many, an illegitimate president?