No matter how much Trump claims, or even proves in the future, that the election results were illegitimate,
He claims he's already proven it: So there's no further evidence or 'proof' coming. Here are his exact words: "It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side."
Got that? Everyone who says that they don't believe Trump won by a landslide is just a liar, and thus complicit in the election theft. Even the Republicans who now refused to impeach him, but are acknowledging Biden won -- they're also liars. Trump claims he's proven the theft conclusively. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor -- according to him and his rhetoric.
I suspect, and you have no knowledge that's relevant here, that Trump is partially correct and I don't think there's any doubt he believes it. Again, I can't imagine that Pelosi believes that fraud was non-existant, and I'd be shocked if she doesn't believe that fraud possibly (if not certainly) gave Biden the win, but the truth she doesn't care. She's never cared. As long as her team wins
and it can't be proven that's good enough.
I also guarantee that Trump has hired pollsters, and data compilers, and other statistical experts that are in fact telling him that his loss is not possible based on their data. Every possibility they're just telling him what he wants to hear, or mistaken, but there's also every possibility they are correct and the vote result is the impossibility. I mean who do you trust? Trump literally watched the media pollsters predicting that a Blue Wave was not only a certainty, but an overwhelming certainty, in an election where his own pollsters were telling him he was close or winning. His pollsters were far more correct than the media pollsters. Why would he believe the media ones now if his own are still giving him a conflicting account?
But as far as "all the evidence" coming out, that remains to be seen. I suspect that what Trump has in his hands (which is more than a suspicion based on the GA SOS call transcript) are largely deep statistical analysis based on available data that show events with a statistically liklihood so far off as to be impossible. Whether or not there are reasonable explanations requires access to information that isn't in Trump's hands. We know he has sworn statements, some of which are not super damning of election intergrity (and these the media loves to focus on) but others of which look like pretty clear proof of fraud. Those claims may be litigated in the future, and it's entirely possible Trump will be able to prove in six months that Biden stole the election. It's also possible he'll never get to see the data or that he'll see it and it will prove he lost (I mean after all when the media did their super duper comprehensive recount in FL of Bush-Gore, Gore still lost).
But of course no court and no legislature was actually convinced by the quality of 'evidence' he provided, that's why Trump's final play was just that Pence should throw out the votes from all the swing states Trump lost. So basically just do an unconstitutional coup, no evidence or proof needed.
I never looked into whether Pence could do that. Seems like beyond a long shot, hard to imagine how it would even stand. There's even a pretty good argument that the law that Congress passed that allows them to debate seating a state's electors is not Constitutional (or would not be if they refused to seat the electors). I don't view the idea as having legal merit with out overwhelmingly popular support that a fraud occurred.
I didn't sit through the legislative sessions, but again I'm not surprised they went no where. Hard to see many politicians wanting to piss off their own voters by overruling an election without rock solid proof or public support no matter the outcome. I thought the best that could be expected there would be for one of them to order an investigation or commission.
As far as the courts, we've discussed them repeatedly, they abdicated their responsibilities. It's unfortunate because in large part we are where we are because state courts have violated the Constitution repeatedly in the run up to elections. Sometimes the lower federal courts have done the same, sometimes not. But a long string of dismissals on standing grounds, on laches grounds and in some cases on the grounds that the court would be unwilling to provide a remedy are not remotely what you imply they are. They are a conclusion that the courts will have nothing to do with protecting an election from fraud unless you can already "prove" without any ability to look at the actual data and records that fraud occurred.
Quite literally, the courts have endorsed the position that if you get away with fraud it's none of their concern, even if there's proof of fraud that you happen to be in control of.
I think the conclusion from Trump's legal team was that a state legislature would not act on its own but that they would do the right thing if a court ordered them to consider the vote because of voting irregularities. It's stupid, but the cover of the court made me do it so I had to do it right would be enough. It still seems like a long shot, but there would be no hiding the actual data from a state legislature ordered to consider the vote by the courts, whereas it's been demonstrated to be trivially easy to refuse share data with Trump's legal team. That was one of the clear take aways from the GA SOS call, that the SOS refused any access to the ability to validate by Trump's team and instead just said you'll have to take our word that we didn't facilitate voter fraud in the situations that you have identified as appearing to be voter fraud.
In another thread yossarian already gave a simple quote from the 6th, and asked Trumpists to explain how it wasn't a lie. As always you ignored it, as you ignore every single time we give you a Trump lie and ask you to explain how it wasn't one. In this case, here it was, from a tweet and also (the second quote) his speech in the 6th.
Well Aris you're lying. I've investigated more fake claims of Trump telling lies than anyone on this board. I have done many documented and cited walk throughs of exactly why various "Trump lies" are in fact not lies. But it's not possible for one guy to do the work of 10,000 media professionals when the 10,000 media professionals are intent on making plausible false claims.
The States want to redo their votes. They found out they voted on a FRAUD. Legislatures never approved.
States want to revote, the states got defrauded. They were given false information, they voted on it. Now they want to recertify; they want it back.
I don't know exactly what you are asking for. I take the first is a tweet? 3 statements in there, the last is clearly true. The states he's challenging all had administrative or judicial actions that were never approved by the state legislatures.
The first is hyperbole, there's no doubt that some people in those states want a redo, its even likely that people in their government have told them they're angry and want a redo. Is your complaint that its a lie because it's not an "official state position"? My good, every single politician speaks "for the people" or for the people of their great state without it literally being true.
Or is it the second? That they found out they voted on a fraud? Not clear what that means. Maybe you can explain it and why it's a lie.
Do please explain to us how these statements by Trump aren't a lie. Which are these states that want to "redo their votes" or to recertify? Which states "want it back"?
The part from the speech seems pretty similar. The argument seems to be solely that it's not the official position of a state?
Why could I not just as correctly call everyone who claims there was no fraud a liar? It's literally 100% false, we factually know there was fraud.
None of them actually. Trump's just a blatant liar, who doesn't even care how blatant his lies are -- because people like you don't care.
I do care. I have not seen one speck of integrity in the position of those who make the claims you're making. You don't prove lies. You don't speak to their impact. You don't care if the media lies about what Trump said, or even if they lie to you about him lying. You don't care if other politicians lie. You shut down your brain because you have a hate on, and no new information can be allowed to penetrate, cause if you looked at things honestly, you'd have to consider if you really are at fault for letting people who've done nothing but manipulate you into power.
So, yeah -- Trump lied and as a result people did an insurrection, and as a result people died. He can go *censored* himself.
No part of this is true. Trump's words didn't kill people. Trump isn't lying about election regularities and he isn't lying to believe he was cheated. Oops I'm sorry, technically your obscene phrase isn't untrue, he's totally capable of doing that if he's so inclined.
I know it's causing severe cognitive dissonance for you, but you really need to start thinking again and evaluating actual facts not just running with Orange man bad shutting down thought and reason.
