Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

[VectorVictor]

12 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Ya, but, Newsmax won't declare a winner

 

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/2020-election-trump-biden-projection/2020/11/18/id/997598/

 

But yet they have zero problems declaring themselves "Independent", or "American", or even a "News" Site, and there's nothing to substantiate those claims... 

[knapplc]

54 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes I read the article.  Sounds like you didn’t.  Too bad.

 

Read the IG report, listen to Comey and McCabes sworn testimony about the Steel Dossier and how it relates to FISA warrants. 
 

your articles and the Democrat memo are trash and were debunked by the Inspector General report 

 

There were two articles. So clearly you didn't read them. Your best source is The Federalist, which is the worst kind of propaganda bunk. And we've already put to bed Barr's IG. None of that is worth the paper it's printed on.

 

You're defending Devin Nunes, who has sued a fake internet cow. Think about what you're doing here.

[knapplc]

The same guy who pulls Bill Barr's strings is sending this nonsense.

 

 

I... don't think Barr's DOJ could put out an IG report on something damaging to trump that I'd believe.

 

The same guy who had his corrupt Postmaster General try to rig the election by dismantling high-speed mail machines.

 

And we're supposed to believe that, despite all the corruption we've seen from Bill Barr's DOJ that the IG report that DOJ produced is legit?

 

 

[Archy1221]

46 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

There were two articles. So clearly you didn't read them. Your best source is The Federalist, which is the worst kind of propaganda bunk. And we've already put to bed Barr's IG. None of that is worth the paper it's printed on.

 

You're defending Devin Nunes, who has sued a fake internet cow. Think about what you're doing here.

Yes I read both articles.  WAPO doesn’t much reference Schiff it talks more Nunes.  You clearly have no idea what I did or didn’t do and you continue to us that M O and continuously lie about someone.  
 

You reference the Federalist as lies yet can’t debunk a Federalist article.  That’s interesting. 
 

not sure if you realize it but Barr doesn’t have an IG. The department of justice does and they are nonpartisan. 
 

Yes. Devin Nunes exposes the lies and FISA abuse.  That’s a good thing no matter who did it.  Your refusing to accept facts just because you don’t like someone. Think about what your doing here. 

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

can’t debunk a Federalist article

 

I don't need to debunk the Federalist. It's yellow journalism. No one takes it as a serious source. But it's cool that this is the source you're sticking to.

 

The DOJ is not "nonpartisan."  Barr's DOJ attempted to represent trump in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit.

 

C'mon. I'm not even breaking a sweat here. This is comical.

 

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Devin Nunes exposes the lies and FISA abuse

 

No, he sues fake internet cows. And gets laughed out of court. Much like trump with his silly election lawsuits.

 

 

[knapplc]

2 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

It won't let me take a screen shot of the results my computer gave me, as it says the file exceeds the size limit for the site. I used to use Screenspresso screen captures all the time, not sure what happened. I assure you I added nothing to the definitions. 

 

I agree with you on the bold, and thank-you for your explanation. The point I was making is exactly what you just stated, that they look similar until one party goes to far, and gets called out. 

 

 

I got the results you got when I googled those terms. I disagree with your interpretation of the situation. And I disagree with the whitewashed definition from google.

 

Gerrymandering is an explicit attempt to disenfranchise voters through outrageously contorted district boundaries. It is never OK to draw districts like this.

 

I don't get why this is even a discussion. What are you defending here?

 

[commando]

lol....now the far right has a new theory.   Biden hired a philly mob boss  named "skinny Joey"  to stuff 200,000 votes into the philly ballot box.   so...sleepy Joe hired skinny Joey to oust dutch oven Donnie if i understand it correctly.  

[Archy1221]

24 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I don't need to debunk the Federalist. It's yellow journalism. No one takes it as a serious source. But it's cool that this is the source you're sticking to.

 

The DOJ is not "nonpartisan."  Barr's DOJ attempted to represent trump in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit.

 

C'mon. I'm not even breaking a sweat here. This is comical.

 

 

No, he sues fake internet cows. And gets laughed out of court. Much like trump with his silly election lawsuits.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2020/05/17/disinformation-from-schiff-media-damaged-america/amp/
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.fresnobee.com/news/local/article238275723.html
 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/adam-schiff-transcripts-russia-trump-collusion-wsj
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-fbi.html
 

At this point you are just being a clown for no good reason.  You are dying on a hill you don’t need to die on.  
 

and yes IG’s are non partisan.   Horowitz was sworn in under Obama. 

[BigRedBuster]

@Archy1221  I have to say that I can’t imagine supporting a disgusting human being That hates so much about America like you do.  
 

I honestly have never believed we would see such a snowflake narcissist in the White House and almost half the country supports him.  

[BigRedBuster]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Maybe they should. 

You said it doesn’t exist unless there is a court case. There is t one here, so it doesn’t exist?

[DevoHusker]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

I got the results you got when I googled those terms. I disagree with your interpretation of the situation. And I disagree with the whitewashed definition from google.

 

Gerrymandering is an explicit attempt to disenfranchise voters through outrageously contorted district boundaries. It is never OK to draw districts like this.

 

I don't get why this is even a discussion. What are you defending here?

 

Not defending anything. Go back to pgs 13-14 where you conflate rigged elections with gerrymandering. I was trying to point out that the outrageous claims of "rigged" election results by Trump's team are very different than the longstanding practice of redistricting by the party in power, that often leads to claims of gerrymandering, and it is difficult to see the difference between the two. Both are trying to gain electoral advantage, but neither can be accurately called "rigged elections" 

[Archy1221]

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You said it doesn’t exist unless there is a court case. There is t one here, so it doesn’t exist?

What???  If someone believes a party in control has gerrymandered districts, then they need to bring a court case forward.   This isn’t rocket science.  Why do you keep bringing this up to me.  Gerrymandering is wrong and I believe both sides of the isle try to re-district as much as they can to help their own cause and take it as far they can before crossing that line.   Some go too far and get caught. It’s stupid. 

[Moiraine]

6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Not defending anything. Go back to pgs 13-14 where you conflate rigged elections with gerrymandering. I was trying to point out that the outrageous claims of "rigged" election results by Trump's team are very different than the longstanding practice of redistricting by the party in power, that often leads to claims of gerrymandering, and it is difficult to see the difference between the two. Both are trying to gain electoral advantage, but neither can be accurately called "rigged elections" 

 

 

There is a huge difference between the 2. State governments have to redistrict. It's part of their jobs. Gerrymandering is by definition rigging an election. We don't always know when gerrymandering has happened, but that's beside the point of the conversation you're trying to have. They are 2 different things. Parties in power can and do redistrict fairly, maybe even more than half of the time. It is not difficult at all to see the 2 things are different and I'm not sure why it's difficult for you.

[NebraskaHarry]

10 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Not at all Harry.  Did it hurt yours?  
 

I can’t figure out the point in going after a politicians kids when he is angry with the politician.  Get pissed all you want with the actions of elected officials.  But leave it there.  
 

I guess you feel otherwise and think that families are ok to go after.  Sad:(. 

Sounds like it hurt your feelings. I watched the video, so I'm curious in where your coming up this "going after kids" thing you're talking about? I guess I'll have to watch it again. 

[knapplc]

15 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Not defending anything. Go back to pgs 13-14 where you conflate rigged elections with gerrymandering. I was trying to point out that the outrageous claims of "rigged" election results by Trump's team are very different than the longstanding practice of redistricting by the party in power, that often leads to claims of gerrymandering, and it is difficult to see the difference between the two. Both are trying to gain electoral advantage, but neither can be accurately called "rigged elections" 

 

What?