User Controls
Posts by stl1
-
2022-06-14 at 4:25 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sLANNY IS LUCKY FRALA HAS NO KIDS BECAUSE THEN HE'D HAVE TO GROW UP AND BE A MAN
PRESIDENTIAL COUP PLOTTING
The Washington Post
Inside the explosive Oval Office confrontation three days before Jan. 6
Michael Kranish
Three days before Congress was slated to certify the 2020 presidential election, a little-known Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark rushed to meet President Donald Trump in the Oval Office to discuss a last-ditch attempt to reverse the results.
Clark, an environmental lawyer by trade, had outlined a plan in a letter he wanted to send to the leaders of key states Joe Biden won. It said that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” about the vote and that the states should consider sending “a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump” for Congress to approve.
In fact, Clark’s bosses had warned there was not evidence to overturn the election and had rejected his letter days earlier. Now they learned Clark was about to meet with Trump. Acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen tracked down his deputy, Richard Donoghue, who had been walking on the Mall in muddy jeans and an Army T-shirt. There was no time to change. They raced to the Oval Office.
As Rosen and Donoghue listened, Clark told Trump that he would send the letter if the president named him attorney general.
“History is calling,” Clark told the president, according to a deposition from Donoghue excerpted in a recent court filing. “This is our opportunity. We can get this done.”
Donoghue urged Trump not to put Clark in charge, calling him “not competent” and warning of “mass resignations” by Justice Department officials if he became the nation’s top law enforcement official, according to Donoghue’s account.
“What happens if, within 48 hours, we have hundreds of resignations from your Justice Department because of your actions?” Donoghue said he asked Trump. “What does that say about your leadership?”
Clark’s letter and his Oval Office meeting set off one of the tensest chapters during Trump’s effort to overturn the election, which culminated three days later with rioters storming the U.S. Capitol. His plan could have decapitated the Justice Department leadership and could have overturned the election.
Clark’s actions have been the focus of a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation and an ongoing probe by the Justice Department’s inspector general, and now are expected to be closely examined during June hearings by the House committee investigating the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021.
After the New York Times reported in January 2021 about Clark’s actions, he said he engaged in a “candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president,” denied that he had a plan to oust Rosen, and criticized others in the meeting for talking publicly and “distorting” the discussion.
Now, however, key witnesses have provided Congress with a fuller account of Clark’s actions, including new details about the confrontation that took place in the Jan. 3 Oval Office meeting, which lasted nearly three hours.
A reconstruction of the events by The Washington Post, based on the court filings, depositions, Senate and House reports, previously undisclosed emails, and interviews with knowledgeable government officials, shows how close the country came to crisis three days before the insurrection.
The evidence, which fills in crucial details about Clark’s efforts, includes an email showing he was sent a draft of a letter outlining a plan to try to overturn the election by a just-arrived Justice Department official who had once written a book claiming President Barack Obama planned to “subvert the Constitution.”
But larger mysteries could still be solved at an upcoming Jan. 6 committee hearing slated to examine Clark’s actions, including the crucial question of whether Clark and his allies were acting on their own initiative — or whether they were one piece of a larger, well-planned effort to keep Trump in power. That question gets to the heart of the committee’s professed mission: proving there was a “coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.”
Clark, 55, and his lawyer, Harry MacDougald, declined to comment.
The House committee unanimously voted to hold Clark in contempt of Congress after he declined in December to answer most questions on grounds that his interactions with Trump were privileged. But Clark later appeared before the committee and asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, CNN reported; his testimony from that appearance has not been released.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who participated in the Judiciary Committee’s investigation, said investigators should key in on whether Clark was working on behalf of others not yet identified.
“It certainly could be a symptom of a much larger and more coherent plan than has currently been disclosed,” Whitehouse said. Clark “does not appear to have elections expertise or experience, which raises the question, did he really sit down at his computer and type it out or does somebody produce it for him?”
Clark, who attended Harvard and got his law degree from Georgetown, built a career focused on environmental law at the Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis and served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.
Clark arrived at Trump’s Justice Department in 2018 to head an office that enforces environmental laws and regulations, and then in September 2020 became acting head of the department’s civil division.
When Attorney General William P. Barr resigned as of Dec. 23 after declaring that the Justice Department had not found evidence of mass fraud in Trump’s election loss, Rosen became the acting attorney general. Trump, though, complained to Rosen that the Justice Department still wasn’t adequately investigating his claims of massive fraud. (A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.)
Clark would soon emerge as someone interested in pursuing Trump’s claims. He found a key ally in Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), one of the earliest proponents of Trump’s voter fraud claims. Perry later told radio station WITF that he had worked with Clark on “various legislative matters” over the previous four years. When Perry called Donoghue in late December to complain that the Justice Department hadn’t sufficiently investigated the election, he mentioned Clark as someone “who could really get in there and do something about this,” according to the Senate Judiciary Committee majority report.
Shortly before Christmas, Clark and Perry met, according to the Senate report. Perry told WITF that “when President Trump asked if I would make an introduction, I obliged.” A Perry spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Clark then met with Trump in the Oval Office, according to the Senate report. When Rosen found out Clark had talked privately with Trump, he was livid, telling Clark in a Dec. 26 phone call that, “You didn’t tell me about it in advance. You didn’t get authorization. You didn’t tell me about it after the fact. This can’t happen,” according to Rosen’s interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Clark was “somewhat apologetic” and promised he wouldn’t do it again without permission, according to Rosen. But Clark had already made an impression on the president. The next day, Trump told Rosen in a phone call that “people are very mad with the Justice Department” not investigating voter fraud and referred to having met with Clark.
Rosen told Trump that the Justice Department could not “flip a switch and change the election,” according to notes of the conversation cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump responded, according to the notes. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” The president urged Rosen to “just have a press conference.”
Rosen refused. “We don’t see that,” he told Trump. “We’re not going to have a press conference.”
A top Clark associate, meanwhile, prepared to send him a draft of the letter to state legislatures.
Kenneth Klukowski had arrived at the Justice Department just two weeks before the Oval Office meeting to become legal counsel to the civil division overseen by Clark.
He had long been an outspoken figure on the right, working as senior legal analyst for the conservative Breitbart website and co-writing a 2010 book about President Barack Obama titled “The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.” Before joining Clark’s team, he’d served as special counsel to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, according to his Facebook page.
At 4:20 p.m. on Dec. 28, 2020, he sent an email that has been a central mystery in the Clark episode. The email to Clark, obtained by The Post, has the subject line, “email to you,” and an attachment titled “Draft Letter JBC 12 28 20.docx.” The email text simply said “Attached.” The attached letter, which has been previously released, was titled “Pre-Decisional & Deliberative/Attorney-Client or Legal Work Product – Georgia Proof of Concept.”
The House committee has sought to determine if Klukowski wrote the letter and whether he did so alone. Klukowski is cooperating with the committee, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a closed-door session.
In an April court filing, a committee lawyer said there is evidence suggesting the letter “may have been drafted by Ken Klukowski.” Whitehouse said he wants to know if someone produced the letter for Klukowski. Klukowski and his lawyer, Edward Greim, declined to comment.
Twenty minutes after Klukowski sent the document, Clark sent Rosen and Donoghue an email with the subject line “Two Urgent Action Items.” One was an attachment of the letter that Klukowski had just sent to him. At the bottom of the letter was a place for it to be signed by Rosen, Donoghue and Clark.
“I set it up for signature by the three of us,” Clark wrote. “I think we should get it out as soon as possible.”
The second item was Clark’s request for an intelligence briefing about an allegation that the Chinese were controlling U.S.-based voting machines via internet-connected smart thermostats, a theory that the Justice Department had dismissed as not credible.
Donoghue said in his deposition that he found Clark’s proposed letter to state leaders and request for the intelligence briefing to be “very strange” and “completely inconsistent with the department’s role ...[and] with what our investigations to date, had revealed.”
“There’s no chance I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this,” Donoghue emailed Clark on the afternoon of Dec. 28, 2020. He stressed that the Justice Department investigations into possible fraud were so small that they “would simply not impact the outcome of the election.” Donoghue told Clark that asking the states to reconsider their certified election results “would be a grave step for the Department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political, and social ramifications for the country.”
Rosen summoned Clark to a meeting along with Donoghue. Clark explained that he been looking at allegations on his own and had concerns about the reliability of the election, according to Donoghue’s deposition. “He mentioned this smart thermostat thing,” Donoghue said, surmising that Clark had read information in lawsuits and “various theories that seemed to be derived from the Internet.”
Donoghue told Clark in the meeting that the proposed letter was “wildly inappropriate and irresponsible … nothing less than the department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election,” Donoghue told the Senate committee.
Rosen was stunned. He had known Clark for years and once had worked with him at Kirkland & Ellis. Rosen told the Senate committee that he wondered “what’s going on with Jeff Clark. That this is inconsistent with how I perceived him in the past.” At several points, Clark asked that the word “acting” be removed from his title as head of the civil division, which Rosen said he declined.
With the meeting concluded, Rosen and Donoghue thought Clark’s effort was over. Clark told them, “I think they are good ideas. You don’t like them. Okay. Then, I guess we won’t do it,” according to Rosen’s Senate committee interview.
But Clark’s effort to woo Trump with his ideas was just beginning.
President Donald Trump holds up copies of news articles during an appearance in the White House briefing room in July 2020.
Several days later, Rosen learned that Clark had once again met with Trump — and once again without informing him in advance, Rosen told the Senate committee. Clark told Rosen that Trump wanted him to consider becoming attorney general. Rosen was livid. “He says he won’t do it again. He did it again,” Rosen recalled. But Rosen said he did not have the authority to fire Clark, as he would have liked to do, because Clark was a presidential appointee.
Shortly after the clash between Clark and the senior Justice Department officials, Clark told Rosen that if he reversed his position and signed the letter to the Georgia legislature, then Rosen could remain attorney general, Rosen told the Senate committee. Rosen refused. Donoghue told Clark that “you went behind your boss’s back, and you’re proposing things that are outside your domain and you don’t know what you’re talking about,” Rosen told the Senate committee.
The following day, Jan. 3, 2021, Clark told Rosen that he had just talked with Trump and that “the president had decided to offer him the position, and he had decided to take it. So that I would be replaced that Sunday, and the department would chart a different path,” Rosen told the Senate committee.
“I don’t get to be fired by someone who works for me,” Rosen said he told Clark. Rosen then called and asked to meet with Trump.
Donoghue, meanwhile, had begun taking things off his office wall and packing boxes, presuming he would resign if it was true Clark was about to be named attorney general, Donoghue told the Senate committee.
A meeting in the Oval Office was quickly arranged with Clark, Rosen, and other Justice Department and White House lawyers. Rosen found Trump sitting behind the Resolute Desk, while other White House and Justice Department officials took their seats. Donoghue, still in his muddy jeans and T-shirt, remained outside. The Post had just broken the news that Trump had a day earlier pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to find enough votes to win the state. Raffensperger had told Trump his allegations of fraud that could overturn the election were baseless.
While Donoghue was watching television coverage about The Post’s report, a White House official emerged and said, “The president wants you in this meeting.”
Around the time Donoghue entered, Clark was telling Trump that if he became attorney general he would “conduct real investigations that would, in his view, uncover widespread fraud,” Donoghue said in his House deposition. Clark vowed to send the letter he drafted to Georgia and other states and said that “this was a last opportunity to sort of set things straight with this defective election, and that he could do it, and he had the intelligence and the will and the desire to pursue these matters in the way that the president thought most appropriate.”
Everyone else in the room told Trump they opposed Clark, Donoghue said.
Trump repeatedly went after Rosen and Donoghue, saying they hadn’t pursued voter fraud allegations.
“You two,” Trump said, pointing to the two top Justice Department officials. “You two haven’t done anything. You two don’t care. You haven’t taken appropriate actions. Everyone tells me I should fire you.”
Trump continually circled back to the idea of replacing Rosen with Clark.
“What do I have to lose?” the president asked, according to Donoghue.
“Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose,” Donoghue said he responded. “Is this really how you want your administration to end? You’re going to hurt the country, you’re going to hurt the department, you’re going to hurt yourself, with people grasping at straws on these desperate theories about election fraud, and is this really in anyone’s best interest?”
Donoghue warned Trump that putting Clark in charge would be likely to lead to mass resignations at the Justice Department.
“Well, suppose I do this,” Trump said to Donoghue. “Suppose I replace [Rosen] with [Clark], what would you do?”
“Sir, I would resign immediately,” Donoghue said he responded. “There’s no way I’m serving under this guy [Clark].”
Trump then turned to Steve Engel, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, whom Trump reportedly had considered for a seat on the Supreme Court.
“Steve, you wouldn’t resign, would you?” Trump asked.
“Absolutely I would, Mr. President. You’d leave me no choice,” Engel responded, according to Donoghue’s account. Engel declined to comment.
“And we’re not the only ones,” Donoghue said he told Trump. “You should understand that your entire department leadership will resign. Every [assistant attorney general] will resign. ... Mr. President, these aren’t bureaucratic leftovers from another administration. You picked them. This is your leadership team. You sent every one of them to the Senate; you got them confirmed. What is that going to say about you, when we all walk out at the same time?”
Donoghue then told Trump that Clark had no qualification to be attorney general: “He’s never been a criminal attorney. He’s never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. He’s never been in front of a grand jury, much less a trial jury.”
Clark objected.
“Well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that,” Clark said, according to Donoghue’s deposition.
“That’s right,” Donoghue said he responded. “You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.” -
2022-06-14 at 6:17 AM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sLANNY ALLOWS FRALA TO WEAR THE PANTS AND PEG HIS ASS.
-
2022-06-13 at 6:15 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sLANNY IS A CHILD WHO GIGGLES WHEN HE HEARS "POOPY" OR "PEE-PEE"
SKUNK NEEDS TO PAINT ANOTHER HOUSE SO HE CAN SEND MORE MONEY TO TRUMP'S "STOP THE STEAL" FUND
Trump pushed fraud claims publicly after his staff dismissed claims
Ella Lee, Bart Jansen, Rebecca Morin, Dylan Wells, Chelsey Cox, Erin Mansfield, Joey Garrison and Katherine Swartz, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Following Thursday's prime-time introduction to the Jan. 6 committee investigating the Capitol attack's findings, the second of eight hearings will dig into the details of former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
A hopeless challenge: Trump campaign officials say they told Trump that challenging the 2020 election results based on theories about election fraud almost certainly would be unsuccessful.
Who was Trump listening to? Testimony from campaign insiders suggested Trump listened to Rudy Giuliani, who witnesses said was drunk, about how to react to the election results instead of advisers who told him he lost.
Advisers caution against declaring victory: Some of Trump’s top campaign advisers told the committee during depositions that they discouraged the president from declaring victory prematurely on election night 2020.
Debunked PA, GA claims of voter fraud: A panel of witnesses during the committee’s second session debunked conspiracy theories about a “suitcase” full of ballots in Georgia and claims that thousands of dead voters cast ballots in Pennsylvania.
Committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, adjourned today’s January 6 hearing after giving a glimpse of what is to come in future hearings, showing a video of January 6 protestors. “We know they were there because of Donald Trump,” said Thompson.
“I know exactly what’s going on right now, fake election. They think they’re gonna f—ing cheat us out of our vote?” said one protestor. Another protestor referred to the Dominion voting machine conspiracy theories often espoused by Trump, saying they “can’t really trust the software.”
SKUNK-PAY ATTENTION HERE!
Lofgren says Trump campaign ‘misled’ donors on where funds were going
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., in a closing statement said the Trump campaign “misled” campaign donors that their funds would be used for election fraud claims.
Lofgren said that Trump and his campaign used voter fraud claims to “raise millions of dollars” from Americans.
“Those donors deserve the truth about what those funds will be used for,” Lofgren said. “Throughout the committee's investigation, we found evidence that the campaign and its surrogates misled donors as to where their funds would go and what they would be used.”
- Rebecca Morin
Election lawyer: Trump campaign did not make its case’
Benjamin Ginsberg, who has represented Republican presidential candidates in three elections (200,2004, 2012), said former President Donald Trump filed dozens of legal challenges for alleged voter fraud, but none were substantiated.
In 2000, the victory margin in the key state of Florida in favor of George W. Bush was 537 votes. In 2020, the closest margin was more than 10,000 votes in Arizona and Trump would have needed several states to change their results. “You just don’t make up those sorts of numbers in recounts.
Trump’s campaign lost 61 cases challenging the election in state and federal courts.
“The simple fact is that the Trump campaign did not make its case,” Ginberg said.
- Bart Jansen
Former GOP Philadelphia city commissioner says they found no evidence of fraud
Testifying to the January 6 committee, Al Schmidt, a former city commissioner from Philadelphia, says after investigation, he found no claims of voter fraud in the City of Brotherly Love.
Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren from California questioned Schmidt, specifically asking about a claim from Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani “that 8,000 dead people voted in Pennsylvania.”
“Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters voting in Pennsylvania, there wasn’t even evidence of eight,” replied Schmidt. “We took seriously every case that was referred to us, but no matter how fantastical, no matter how absurd, we took every one of those seriously, including these.”
- Kenneth Tran
Georgia officials: Trump's claims about voter fraud in the Peach State are false
The committee returned from recess to hear video testimony by a former official from Georgia about how Trump's claims of voter fraud in that state were simply false.
Former U.S. Attorney Byung “BJay” Pak broke down one such claim: "We found that the suitcase full of ballots, the alleged black suitcase that was being seen pulled from under the table, was actually an official lock box where ballots were kept safe."
Trump's pressure on Georgia officials to "find" votes from these kinds of false claims are the subject of a grand jury investigation in Atlanta.
- David Jackson
Committee took short recess after first half of hearing dominated by one theme: Trump ‘knew’ he lost and lied about claims
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack of the U.S. Capitol took a recess shortly after noon ET after a first half of testimony that focused on how Trump knew he lost the 2020 election but ignored the advice of his top aides who shot down the president's claims of election fraud.
The hearing leaned heavily on videotaped testimony of former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and former Attorney General Barr. The latter said he determined Trump was “detached from reality” because of some of his fantastical election fraud claims and that were "completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation."
The first half of the hearing also detailed how Trump was aware that mail ballots cast late on election night would heavily favor Joe Biden but that Trump falsely claimed victory anyway.
- Joey Garrison
Trump aides report no widespread election fraud
Several aides to former President Donald Trump told the House Jan. 6 committee he was told repeatedly allegations of election fraud weren’t substantiated through investigations.
Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said Trump was told he received bad information that wasn’t correct. Derek Lyons, a former assistant to the president, said no allegations were substantiated for litigation. Alex Cannon, a former Trump campaign lawyer, said trade adviser Peter Navarro accused him of being a member of the 'Deep State' for dismissing technology concerns in Georgia based on a hand recount of ballots.
“In our point of view, it was debunked,” Rosen said of election fraud.
- Bart Jansen
Former deputy attorney general said he told Trump many of the voter fraud theories were ‘false’
Richard Donoghue, former deputy attorney general, said he told Trump “much of the info you're getting is false” when the former president asked about voter fraud theories.
Donoghue said he told Trump that many of the theories were not supported by evidence gathered. He noted that while Trump would accept that one allegation was false, he would move on to another conspiracy theory.
There were so many of these allegations, that when you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn't fight us on it, but he would move to another allegation,” Donoghue said.
- Rebecca Morin
Barr expected to get fired for saying election was legitimate
Then-President Donald Trump summoned his attorney general Bill Barr up to his office after Barr told a news reporter there was no amount of fraud in the 2020 election that would have changed the outcome.
“The president was as mad as I’d ever seen him and he was trying to control himself,” Barr, who had told his secretary she may have to pack up if he gets fired, told the House committee investigating Jan. 6. “The president said, ‘Well this is killing me. You didn’t have to say this. You must have said this because you hate Trump. You hate Trump.’”
Then the president went into a conspiracy theory about votes in Detroit, at which point Barr debunked his theory and pointed out that Trump did better in Detroit in 2020 than in 2016.
“I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public was bull—,” Barr said. “He was indignant about that.”
- Erin Mansfield
Former AG Barr: “If he really believes this stuff, he’s become detached from reality.”
Former Attorney General Bill Barr told the January 6 committee that Trump was convinced of a conspiracy theory that voter fraud was conducted through Dominion voting machines. If Trump truly believed the theory, Barr said “he’s become detached from reality.”
Trump “went off on a monologue saying that there was now definitive evidence involving fraud through the Dominion machines," he said.
Trump also told Barr that the Dominion report was “absolute proof that the Dominion machines were rigged. The report means I am going to have a second term.” Looking through the report, Barr said “it looked very amateurish to me” and he “didn’t see any real qualifications.”
“I was somewhat demoralized, because I thought, boy if he really believes this stuff, he’s become detached from reality, if he really believes this stuff," Barr said.
- Kenneth Tran
More BS: Panel reprises Bill Barr's use of barnyard epithet to describe Trump's claims of voter fraud
The committee replayed then-Attorney General Bill Barr's pungent description of Trump's false claims of voter fraud.
"The stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public was bull----, that the claims of fraud were bull---- and he was indignant about that," Barr said in video testimony.
Barr used the same term in his book and the committee played a clip of him on Thursday night using the traditional barnyard epithet.
- David Jackson
Meadows and Kushner told Barr they thought Trump would end talk of stolen election
Former Attorney General William Barr recounted a conversation in the days after the election that he had with Jared Kushner and Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who were both convinced that Trump was ready to tamp down his wild claims of a stolen election.
“Look, I think that he's becoming more realistic and knows that there's a limit to how far he can take this,” Meadows told Barr, according to videotaped testimony from Barr.
Kushner told Barr: “Yeah, we’re working on this.”
- Joey Garrison
'Very bleak:" Witnesses say it was obvious from Election Night that Trump had lost
A slew of witnesses are backing the committee's claim that Trump protested the 2020 election even though he was shown plenty of data that he had in fact lost – one of them being Trump's own campaign manager.
In his videotaped testimony, Stepien said that Trump's chances of victory were "very, very, very bleak" in the hours after Election Day ended – and that Trump knew it.
Yet Trump persisted in claiming election fraud, a campaign that ended with the Jan. 6 insurrection, committee members said – his self-knowledge is a key legal point should the former president be prosecuted for inciting a riot.
- David Jackson
Former Fox News political editor says Trump tried to exploit ‘red mirage’
Chris Stirewalt, a former Fox News political editor, said he felt it was necessary to be honest with viewers about the “red mirage,” which was showing Trump ahead of votes on election day, but began to drop behind as mail-in votes came in.
Stirewalt explained that Republican candidates typically have a higher voter count from same day election votes, while Democrats typically vote early or by mail. He said “the Trump campaign and the President had made it clear that they were going to try to exploit this anomaly.”
“We wanted to keep telling viewers, ‘hey, look, the number that you see here is sort of irrelevant, because it's only a small percentage of these votes,’” Stirewalt said.
- Rebecca Morin -
2022-06-13 at 5:52 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sLANNY IS A CUCK!
-
2022-06-09 at 7:43 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sLANNY WEARS A DRESS AND FRALA WEARS THE PANTS
Originally posted by frala If you had any idea how expensive my purses are, you’d know I’d never put anyone’s balls in there.
Also, this thread is 733 pages long. I don’t think it needs a revival.
Bitch thinks she runs this place.
Too bad she does.
LANNY IS A CUCK. -
2022-06-08 at 8:44 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
Originally posted by POLECAT whoa, did you guys see that cum lickin faggot post in here,,, lol what a faggot
LANNY'S BALLS ARE IN FRALA'S PURSE!
Skunk, this is the thanks I get for single handedly reviving this dead thread of yours? It had been FOUR DAYS since anybody even posted in here and after one single post by me, there are TWO FULL PAGES of responses! Some people's kids just never learned gratitude.
By the way...only one more day until THE TRUTH IS REVEALED and all you MAGA MORONS learn how gullible you've been and led around like the sheeple that you are! -
2022-06-07 at 2:52 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sLANNY'S BALLS ARE WALKING AROUND IN FRALA'S PURSE
-TWO DAYS TO TRUTH-
Business Insider
Jan. 6 panel has evidence on Trump showing 'a lot more than incitement,' member says
tporter@businessinsider.com (Tom Porter)
Rep. Jamie Raskin said the Jan 6 committee found serious evidence implicating Trump in the riot.
He said it showed worse than incitement — the charge in Trump's second impeachment.
Raskin hinted that the committee would try to prove a "conspiracy" in hearings due this week.
The House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot has evidence against former President Donald Trump showing "a lot more than incitement," one of its members said.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, said the evidence against Trump was more serious than was known before.
He suggested it would justify more serious charges than leveled at Trump in his second impeachment, where he was accused of incitement to insurrection.
"The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we're gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan. 6," Raskin said during an interview Monday with Washington Post Live.
The committee's first public hearings is due on Thursday evening, where the panel plans to reveal the evidence that it has gathered on the key individuals and events behind the riot over more than a year.
Raskin told the Post that the panel had evidence of "concerted planning and premeditated activity" and that this week's hearing would "tell the story of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power."
Asked if Trump was at the center of that conspiracy, Raskin said "I think that Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events."
"That's the only way really of making sense of them all," he said.
He noted, however, that "people are going to have to make judgments themselves about the relative role that different people played."
Trump was acquitted by the Senate on incitement charges in February 2021, after the upper chamber failed to reach the two-thirds majority required to convict. Seven Republican senators sided with the Democratic caucus in finding the president guilty, enough for an absolute majority but too few for a conviction under impeachment rules.
That trial focused on an incendiary speech Trump delivered to supporters before they marched on the Capitol and temporarily halted the ceremony certifying Joe Biden's victory, as well disinformation from Trump wrongly claiming that the 2020 election was stolen by fraud.
The committee's activities have gone beyond this, per statements by Raskin and other members, and the hearings are likely to make a much broader argument about Trump's culpability. -
2022-05-24 at 6:39 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sFRALA CARRIES LANNY'S BALLS IN HER PURSE
SERVES THE BASTARDS RIGHT!
RawStory
Texas GOP voters are getting tripped up by their own party's new voting restrictions
By Sarah K. Burris
New Texas voting laws are causing a lot of problems for Republican voters, according to a Newsy report ahead of the primary run-off elections Tuesday.
As the report notes, several new rules passed by Texas Republicans in the wake of the 2020 elections put more stringent requirements on mail-in ballots.
One rule passed by Republican lawmakers is mandates that voters must put either their drivers license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on the envelope containing their ballot.
This has led to a higher number of rejected ballots: Ballot rejections in 2020 ran about 0.8 percent, but in 2022 they're at 12 percent. The number might seem low, but that's equal to at least 7,000 people in one Texas county.
Republicans had a higher rate of error than Democrats, meaning there are thousands more Republicans in the state whose ballots aren't being counted in the primary election.
In March, during the initial primary elections, just 16 of the state’s largest counties had more than 18,000 mail-in ballots that were rejected because they missed the tiny fine print.
One elderly Republican voter noted that the question about the driver's license or social security number was printed so small she couldn't read it. Newsy said they calculated it was seven-point font. National election standards that benefit visually impaired people require nothing can be smaller ten-point font.
The first time Texas voted with the new ballot was March 1, so when the state passed the law in December, they had very little time to print the ballots and get them out to voters. But, two months later, for the run-off elections, the ballots are still a mess, the report said. -
2022-03-28 at 7:55 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sLanny. would you please change my title to "LANNY IS FRALA'S CUCK"?
Thanks!
"WE GOT HIM THIS TIME!"
The Washington Post
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
Philip Bump
They are astonishing words to read just above the signature of a federal judge.
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
“Dr. [John] Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter wrote in an opinion published on Monday. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory.”
Eastman, you’ll recall, is the legal scholar who advocated that Vice President Mike Pence simply reject electoral votes submitted by a number of states as Congress convened to finalize the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. Carter’s summary of Eastman’s efforts — championed eagerly by Trump — was that it was not sincere advocacy of a novel theory of allocating power but, instead, a contrived rationale aimed at the goal of preserving Trump’s presidency.
This is not particularly surprising, even if it is stark. What’s more important is what precedes those words in Carter’s opinion: a detailed argument, hinging at one critical point on Trump’s own words, explaining why it’s likely that Donald Trump broke federal law in trying to retain power.
Carter’s ruling is part of a legal fight over documents in Eastman’s possession that focus on the effort to reject the outcome of the 2020 election. The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack subpoenaed material from Eastman related to the effort and he withheld it, citing attorney-client privilege. Carter was asked to determine if that privilege should apply to the material. In the end, he found that it overwhelmingly did not. But not because he thought Eastman was mostly not acting as counsel to Trump or Trump’s campaign and not solely because he thought most of the material was not related to litigation.
The judge was also asked by the House committee to evaluate if the material might need to be turned over because it was not protected by privilege due to the “crime-fraud” exception. In other words, if an attorney is discussing the commission of a crime with a client, that material may not be subject to being withheld under privilege. And earlier this month that’s precisely what the committee alleged: Trump and Eastman were engaged in an effort to violate more than one federal law and, therefore, communication related to that effort should not be privileged.
Carter agreed. The standard in a civil case is that a “preponderance of the evidence” shows that a crime was likely committed, meaning the evidence needed to show that it was “more likely than not.” And when considering the components of two crimes identified by the committee, Carter felt such a preponderance existed.
The first allegation was that Trump had tried to obstruct an official proceeding. In order for such a crime to be committed, Carter wrote, it needs to be shown that three things happened:
“the person obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede”
“an official proceeding of the United States, and”
“did so corruptly.”
The second allegation — that there was a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. — has similar requirements: that “at least two people entered into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government ... by deceitful or dishonest means, and ... that a member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement.”
In each case, two of the three stipulations are easy to meet. Trump’s effort to obstruct (#1) an official proceeding (#2) — the counting of electoral votes — is obvious, though Carter outlines the specific path by which that occurred. Similarly, the first and third components of the conspiracy allegation are fairly trivial to identify: Trump and Eastman worked to twist Pence’s arm and called on the crowd outside the White House to march to the Capitol and pressure Congress, among other things. Again, the full filing makes each case explicitly.
As I noted when the committee first alleged the violation of these laws (as it sought to apply the crime-fraud exception to Eastman’s privilege claims), the more challenging aspect of each allegation lies in the intent. Did Trump try to obstruct the electoral-vote count corruptly; that is, knowing that it was dishonest to do so? Did the conspiracy to obstruct the function of government occur thanks to “deceitful or dishonest means” — or did Trump perhaps sincerely believe that the election had been stolen?
The House committee, arguing for the former, pointed to the various officials and experts who’d rejected the idea that the election had been stolen as evidence that Trump must have known it hadn’t been. But Eastman, replying to that filing, argued that just as many advisers to Trump were insisting that the opposite was true, that there was rampant fraud that demanded the election results be reconsidered. That perhaps Trump existed in some liminal space between truth and falsehood making his objections sincere.
That’s why Carter’s isolation of Trump’s comments in his phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state on Jan. 3, 2021, is so important.
You probably remember that call. Trump phoned the man in charge of Georgia’s elections, Brad Raffensperger, and repeatedly tried to cajole him into identifying enough “fraudulent” votes that Trump could win the state. In short order, the audio of the call was obtained by The Washington Post and published.
During the conversation, Trump repeatedly tried to claim that various buckets of votes were questionable and Raffensperger repeatedly indicated that the claims were unfounded or unproven. Then Trump, who lost the state by fewer than 12,000 votes laid his cards on the table, telling Raffensperger, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”
“President Trump’s repeated pleas for Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger clearly demonstrate that his justification was not to investigate fraud, but to win the election,” Carter wrote in his opinion. He quoted Trump: "So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”
“Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification,” Carter continued.
In other words, Trump let the veil drop. He wasn’t concerned that fraud might have occurred and that the will of the voters was lost. He was simply worried about getting those votes he needed — and wanted the Republican secretary of state to play ball. This is a corrupt intent. This is dishonest.
“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Carter wrote of the obstruction allegation. “... President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, ‘no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.’ Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this ‘BOLD’” — quoting Eastman — “President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.”
There were legal implications from the ruling for the House committee and for Eastman. But, particularly when coupled with the finding last month that Trump probably entered into a civil conspiracy with extremist groups similarly aimed at blocking the 2020 election, Carter’s assertion that a preponderance of evidence suggested that Trump violated the law is historic and enormously significant.
A crime was likely committed by the sitting president in order to retain power. -
2022-03-18 at 5:17 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
Originally posted by POLECAT R I P motherfucker…
in memory of a faggot commie's last thought inline before he died realizing TRUMP was actually THE MAN FOR THE JOB.
stl1
Cum Lickin' Fagit
Anything but "Orange Man Bad".
Quote
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ St|1 died of the jab.
I wrote Lanny that I would not post under the heading of "Cum Lickin' Fagit".
Just thought you'd want to know why I no longer around.
Lanny has put his fat fingers on the scales. -
2022-03-03 at 6:15 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sJan. 6 Panel Sees Evidence of Trump ‘Criminal Conspiracy’
The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said for the first time that its evidence suggests crimes may have been committed by former President Donald Trump and his associates.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said Wednesday for the first time that its evidence suggests crimes may have been committed by former President Donald Trump and his associates in the failed effort to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump and his associates engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” to prevent Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College, the House committee said in a court filing. Trump and those working with him spread false information about the outcome of the presidential election and pressured state officials to overturn the results, potentially violating multiple federal laws, the panel said.
“The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California.
The 221-page filing marks the committee’s most formal effort to link the former president to a federal crime, though the actual import of the filing is not clear. Lawmakers do not have the power to bring criminal charges on their own and can only make a referral to the Justice Department. The department has been investigating last year’s riot, but it has not given any indication that it is considering seeking charges against Trump.
The committee made the claims in response to a lawsuit by Trump adviser John Eastman, a lawyer and law professor who was consulting with Trump as he attempted to overturn the election. Eastman is trying to withhold documents from the committee.
In a statement late Wednesday, Charles Burnham, Eastman’s attorney, said his client has a responsibility “to protect client confidences, even at great personal risk and expense.”
Burnham added, “The Select Committee has responded to Dr. Eastman’s efforts to discharge this responsibility by accusing him of criminal activity.”
The brief filed Wednesday was an effort to knock down Eastman’s attorney-client privilege claims. In doing so, the committee argued there is a legal exception allowing the disclosure of communications regarding ongoing or future crimes.
“The Select Committee is not conducting a criminal investigation,” Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s Democratic chairman, said in a statement. “But, as the judge noted at a previous hearing, Dr. Eastman’s privilege claims raise the question whether the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies in this situation.”
The filing also provides new details from the committee’s interviews with several top Trump aides and members of former Vice President Mike Pence’s team, including chief of staff Marc Short and chief counsel Greg Jacob.
The committee said it has evidence that Trump sought to obstruct an official proceeding — in this case, the certification of the election results — by trying to strong-arm Pence to delay the proceedings so there would be additional time to “manipulate” the results.
“The evidence supports an inference that President Trump and members of his campaign knew he had not won enough legitimate state electoral votes to be declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential election during the January 6 Joint Session of Congress, but the President nevertheless sought to use the Vice President to manipulate the results in his favor,” the filing states.
In a Jan. 6, 2021, email exchange between Eastman and Jacob revealed by the committee, Eastman pushed for Pence to intervene in his ceremonial role and halt the certification of the electoral votes, a step Pence had no power to take.
Jacob replied: “I respect your heart here. I share your concerns about what Democrats will do once in power. I want election integrity fixed. But I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results-oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up.”
He added, “And thanks to your bulls—-, we are now under siege.”
The filing represents the most comprehensive look yet at the findings of the Jan. 6 committee, which is investigating the violent insurrection of Trump’s supporters in an effort to ensure that nothing like it happens again. While the panel can’t pursue criminal charges, members want to provide the public a thorough account of the attack, in which hundreds of people brutally beat police, pushed through windows and doors and interrupted the certification of Biden’s win.
So far, lawmakers and investigators have interviewed hundreds of people, including members of Trump’s family and his chief of staff as well as his allies in the seven swing states where the former president tried and failed to prove he won. The panel has also sought out information from members of Congress and subpoenaed records and testimony from top social media platforms they believe had a hand in the spreading of election misinformation.
The committee is expected to fully release its findings in a lengthy report or series of reports later this year, ahead of the midterm elections. The panel is also planning days or weeks of hearings starting in April with some of the witnesses who testified.
In other transcripts released as part of the filing, former senior Justice Department official Richard Donoghue described trying to convince Trump that claims of election fraud were pure fiction. “I told the President myself that several times, in several conversations, that these allegations about ballots being smuggled in a suitcase and run through the machines several times, it was not true, that we had looked at it, we looked at the video, we interviewed the witnesses, and it was not true.”
At one point, Donoghue said, he had to reassure Trump that the Justice Department had investigated a report that someone has transported a tractor-trailer full of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. The department found no evidence to support the allegations, Donoghue said.
The transcripts also shed colorful detail on a contentious Jan. 3, 2021, meeting at which Trump contemplated replacing his acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with an assistant who promised to get to the bottom of the president’s bogus claims of election fraud.
That assistant, Jeffrey Clark, had been the department’s top environmental enforcement lawyer for a period, a fact that led to some derision from colleagues at the meeting when it was pointed out that Clark had not been a criminal prosecutor.
“And he kind of retorted by saying, ‘Well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that,’” Donoghue said. “And I said, ‘That’s right. You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.’” -
2022-03-03 at 6 PM UTC in Whoopi's OopsiesAnything but "Orange Man Bad".
-
2022-03-03 at 5:49 PM UTC in Turns out the wheel bolt pattern for my escape and my lancer are the same.Could you copy and paste something instead, please?
-
2022-03-03 at 5:43 PM UTC in Whoopi's OopsiesLanny needs to control his woman and take away her ability to edit.
If he has the balls. -
2022-03-03 at 5:38 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sRoss Perot would look good after Trump.
Or Michael Dukakis.
Or George McGovern.
Or...Pee Wee Herman -
2022-03-03 at 5:36 PM UTC in World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2022-03-03 at 5:33 PM UTC in World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
Originally posted by mmQ I feel like stl ruined the concept of copy/paste with his thousands of them never followed up with any personal insight.
Just the facts, ma'am. Screw your "personal insight" and your "alternative truths". The articles I so shamelessly copy and paste are from reliable news sources that have usually been around for years, if not decades or longer. My opinion can be garnered from the articles I post. The people I quote are usually highly educated and trained to do their jobs. That is how they make their living. They better know what they write about and have sources available to them that neither you nor I ever could.
You keep typing about your feelings and watching imbeciles on YouTube videos.
I'll stick to the facts, ma'am. -
2022-03-03 at 5:12 PM UTC in World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecastMy plan is working.
I am occupying an inordinate amount of your brains! -
2022-03-03 at 5:09 PM UTC in Whoopi's OopsiesDo you think Lanny would change it to "Orange Man Bad"?
-
2022-03-03 at 5:08 PM UTC in Whoopi's OopsiesAnything but "Cum Lickin' Fagit".
