2020 General Election

[UNI88]

We saw the Bare Naked Ladies at the Gorge in the 90’s. Wasn’t much of a fan but they were absolutely terrific entertainers. Last 10 minutes was basically an onslaught of short alt-covers played to perfection.

Have you been to the Gorge yet, ‘88? The Maryhill Amphitheater gets good acts too. Both are gorgeous.

Neither yet. The Gorge is a little bit of a haul when there are some many venues close by. I will put Maryhill on my list and keep an eye out for acts I'd like to see.

I posted that because Del Amitri is playing and "Always the Last to Know" is their song.

[kalm]

We saw the Bare Naked Ladies at the Gorge in the 90’s. Wasn’t much of a fan but they were absolutely terrific entertainers. Last 10 minutes was basically an onslaught of short alt-covers played to perfection.

Have you been to the Gorge yet, ‘88? The Maryhill Amphitheater gets good acts too. Both are gorgeous.

Neither yet. The Gorge is a little bit of a haul when there are some many venues close by. I will put Maryhill on my list and keep an eye out for acts I'd like to see.

I posted that because Del Amitri is playing and "Always the Last to Know" is their song.

Yes… I saw that. Well played.

[houndawg]

And here’s how smart Tucker thinks his viewers are…

(From last night)

Whenever some one says "honestly" you know they're lying

[bobbythekidd]

Is this the Kraken we've been promised all this time? They finally released it!

I learned a lesson over that one. I thought Sidney Powell was a good attorney as she did a pretty good job of resolving the Mike Flynn case quickly and in his favor.

So when she said she had the goods on Dominion, I believed she had a case. In retrospect, I'm now thinking someone was feeding Powell information in regards to the Flynn case, and she's not that great of an attorney.

Kiddos SG. It's sometimes difficult to admit when they were wrong. Well done.

[houndawg]

I learned a lesson over that one. I thought Sidney Powell was a good attorney as she did a pretty good job of resolving the Mike Flynn case quickly and in his favor.

So when she said she had the goods on Dominion, I believed she had a case. In retrospect, I'm now thinking someone was feeding Powell information in regards to the Flynn case, and she's not that great of an attorney.

Kiddos SG. It's sometimes difficult to admit when they were wrong. Well done.

I doubt that there is anyone on either side that hasn't been fooled by some part of this national telenovella

[BDKJMU]

Lol. Its almost like she is trying to sabotage the case..


This is her twitter feed. A wackadoodle lefty on the jury as the jury foreman.
https://twitter.com/SomeB1tchIKnow?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Lol

[SeattleGriz]

Lol. Its almost like she is trying to sabotage the case..

Exactly what I was thinking, although I didn't think this "special" grand jury could issue indictments, so this especially seems like theatrics to whip up the blueanon/TDS crowd.

Claim no indictments could be made due to her public appearance and then watch everyone scream about the unfairness and how dirty it all was, even though there was no wrong doing.

The “special grand jury” exists outside the traditional justice system and as an outcome cannot produce indictments. It was assembled, for all intents and purposes, as a quasi-grand jury with the intent on creating a continual political effort through a process best described as lawfare.

[kalm]

Lol. Its almost like she is trying to sabotage the case..

Exactly what I was thinking, although I didn't think this "special" grand jury could issue indictments, so this especially seems like theatrics to whip up the blueanon/TDS crowd.

Claim no indictments could be made due to her public appearance and then watch everyone scream about the unfairness and how dirty it all was, even though there was no wrong doing.

The “special grand jury” exists outside the traditional justice system and as an outcome cannot produce indictments. It was assembled, for all intents and purposes, as a quasi-grand jury with the intent on creating a continual political effort through a process best described as lawfare.

There was no wrongdoing? Did you listen to Trump’s recorded phone call?

[SeattleGriz]

Exactly what I was thinking, although I didn't think this "special" grand jury could issue indictments, so this especially seems like theatrics to whip up the blueanon/TDS crowd.

Claim no indictments could be made due to her public appearance and then watch everyone scream about the unfairness and how dirty it all was, even though there was no wrong doing.

There was no wrongdoing? Did you listen to Trump’s recorded phone call?

Yes I did. I heard Trump point out several irregularities with an election he was winning by a comfortable margin, only to see the center closed to observers and then Biden magically won by 12,000 votes.

Raffsberger (sp) admitted he didn't have chain of custody for well over 12,000 ballots, but still certified.

[kalm]

There was no wrongdoing? Did you listen to Trump’s recorded phone call?

Yes I did. I heard Trump point out several irregularities with an election he was winning by a comfortable margin, only to see the center closed to observers and then Biden magically won by 12,000 votes.

Raffsberger (sp) admitted he didn't have chain of custody for well over 12,000 ballots, but still certified.

Ummm..you might need to listen again.

[houndawg]

There was no wrongdoing? Did you listen to Trump’s recorded phone call?

Yes I did. I heard Trump point out several irregularities with an election he was winning by a comfortable margin, only to see the center closed to observers and then Biden magically won by 12,000 votes.

Raffsberger (sp) admitted he didn't have chain of custody for well over 12,000 ballots, but still certified.

He must be a Deep-State plant in the Party

[SeattleGriz]

Yes I did. I heard Trump point out several irregularities with an election he was winning by a comfortable margin, only to see the center closed to observers and then Biden magically won by 12,000 votes.

Raffsberger (sp) admitted he didn't have chain of custody for well over 12,000 ballots, but still certified.

He must be a Deep-State plant in the Party

Ha! I think he just doesn't want to be exposed as running a sloppy election like the majority of SOS's. I'll be honest in saying it would be difficult to keep all the moving pieces of a statewide election, especially one the size of Georgia, free from issues.

[kalm]

He must be a Deep-State plant in the Party

No, I think he just doesn't want to be exposed as running a sloppy election like the majority of SOS's. I'll be honest in saying it would be difficult to keep all the moving pieces of a statewide election, especially one the size of Georgia, free from issues.

“I just need you to find me…(checks notes)…10,781 more votes, ok?”

[GannonFan]

No, I think he just doesn't want to be exposed as running a sloppy election like the majority of SOS's. I'll be honest in saying it would be difficult to keep all the moving pieces of a statewide election, especially one the size of Georgia, free from issues.

“I just need you to find me…(checks notes)…10,781 more votes, ok?”

I still don't see where, if that's all he said (and of course he didn't, he always says a lot more, he's never that succinct) that that would be a criminal offense. Unless he said to do something illegal, it just comes off as seedy, reckless, and self-serving. But not criminal. I think his actions around Jan 6th were far more worrisome and potentially criminal. This Georgia stuff just sounds like a politician blowing some smoke.

[kalm]

“I just need you to find me…(checks notes)…10,781 more votes, ok?”

I still don't see where, if that's all he said (and of course he didn't, he always says a lot more, he's never that succinct) that that would be a criminal offense. Unless he said to do something illegal, it just comes off as seedy, reckless, and self-serving. But not criminal. I think his actions around Jan 6th were far more worrisome and potentially criminal. This Georgia stuff just sounds like a politician blowing some smoke.

It’s been a long time since I listened to that audio but IIRC it was pretty damning. It at least layed the groundwork for criminal intent/conspiracy.

[GannonFan]

I still don't see where, if that's all he said (and of course he didn't, he always says a lot more, he's never that succinct) that that would be a criminal offense. Unless he said to do something illegal, it just comes off as seedy, reckless, and self-serving. But not criminal. I think his actions around Jan 6th were far more worrisome and potentially criminal. This Georgia stuff just sounds like a politician blowing some smoke.

It’s been a long time since I listened to that audio but IIRC it was pretty damning. It at least layed the groundwork for criminal intent/conspiracy.

I just ask because all I ever remember hearing was the request to find the additional votes and the commenting about whether there were any shenanigans the other way going on. Not to exonerate Trump, I think he's rather despicable, but just not liking the guy doesn't equate to grounds for criminal prosecution. Criminal intent without explicitly asking someone to do something criminal is pretty weak.

[SeattleGriz]

No, I think he just doesn't want to be exposed as running a sloppy election like the majority of SOS's. I'll be honest in saying it would be difficult to keep all the moving pieces of a statewide election, especially one the size of Georgia, free from issues.

“I just need you to find me…(checks notes)…10,781 more votes, ok?”

Small difference, but he didn't demand Raffensperger to find votes. He was asking for investigation of the anomalies.

Trump also had an attorney on the call if I remember as well.

All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump says, according to audio of the call

[kalm]

It’s been a long time since I listened to that audio but IIRC it was pretty damning. It at least layed the groundwork for criminal intent/conspiracy.

I just ask because all I ever remember hearing was the request to find the additional votes and the commenting about whether there were any shenanigans the other way going on. Not to exonerate Trump, I think he's rather despicable, but just not liking the guy doesn't equate to grounds for criminal prosecution. Criminal intent without explicitly asking someone to do something criminal is pretty weak.

Well the part about asking to find votes was pretty clear in that regard.

A quick look back at the first article hit shows some more. I’m not sure if this amounts to criminal intent - find more votes, intimidation, etc. I do remember the whole call sounded like a Hollywood mafia movie shakedown bit. We’ll just have to wait and see if it amounts to criminality.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/11064728 ... -real-time

“Trump said: "There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, you've recalculated ... even if you cut them in half, cut them in half and cut them in half again, it's more votes than we need."

“ On the phone with Raffensperger, Trump said that submitting shredded and unsigned ballots would be "more illegal for you than it is is for [the people doing so], because you know what they did and you're not reporting it."

He went on to call it a criminal offense and a big risk.

Later, after Raffensperger had denied the fraud allegations, Trump said he thought it was "dangerous for you to say that."

[GannonFan]

I just ask because all I ever remember hearing was the request to find the additional votes and the commenting about whether there were any shenanigans the other way going on. Not to exonerate Trump, I think he's rather despicable, but just not liking the guy doesn't equate to grounds for criminal prosecution. Criminal intent without explicitly asking someone to do something criminal is pretty weak.

Well the part about asking to find votes was pretty clear in that regard.

A quick look back at the first article hit shows some more. I’m not sure if this amounts to criminal intent - find more votes, intimidation, etc. I do remember the whole call sounded like a Hollywood mafia movie shakedown bit. We’ll just have to wait and see if it amounts to criminality.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/11064728 ... -real-time

“Trump said: "There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, you've recalculated ... even if you cut them in half, cut them in half and cut them in half again, it's more votes than we need."

“ On the phone with Raffensperger, Trump said that submitting shredded and unsigned ballots would be "more illegal for you than it is is for [the people doing so], because you know what they did and you're not reporting it."

He went on to call it a criminal offense and a big risk.

Later, after Raffensperger had denied the fraud allegations, Trump said he thought it was "dangerous for you to say that."

Again, doesn't sound great, but doesn't sound like he's advocating for anything illegal to be done or pushing the guy to break any laws. Something like this, at this magnitude and with such political ramifications, needs to be air-tight and a slam-dunk. I don't see this as that. Heck, Jan 6th is closer to a slam-dunk and I don't see us prosecuting him on that either right now because it isn't that rock solid.

[houndawg]

He must be a Deep-State plant in the Party

Ha! I think he just doesn't want to be exposed as running a sloppy election like the majority of SOS's. I'll be honest in saying it would be difficult to keep all the moving pieces of a statewide election, especially one the size of Georgia, free from issues.

gee....thanks

[UNI88]

Well the part about asking to find votes was pretty clear in that regard.

A quick look back at the first article hit shows some more. I’m not sure if this amounts to criminal intent - find more votes, intimidation, etc. I do remember the whole call sounded like a Hollywood mafia movie shakedown bit. We’ll just have to wait and see if it amounts to criminality.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/11064728 ... -real-time

“Trump said: "There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, you've recalculated ... even if you cut them in half, cut them in half and cut them in half again, it's more votes than we need."

“ On the phone with Raffensperger, Trump said that submitting shredded and unsigned ballots would be "more illegal for you than it is is for [the people doing so], because you know what they did and you're not reporting it."

He went on to call it a criminal offense and a big risk.

Later, after Raffensperger had denied the fraud allegations, Trump said he thought it was "dangerous for you to say that."

Again, doesn't sound great, but doesn't sound like he's advocating for anything illegal to be done or pushing the guy to break any laws. Something like this, at this magnitude and with such political ramifications, needs to be air-tight and a slam-dunk. I don't see this as that. Heck, Jan 6th is closer to a slam-dunk and I don't see us prosecuting him on that either right now because it isn't that rock solid.

It's about as damning as the "big guy" reference with Hunter and Ukraine. An unbiased person would say in both instances that this is something fishy there but probably not enough to prosecute.

[kalm]

Again, doesn't sound great, but doesn't sound like he's advocating for anything illegal to be done or pushing the guy to break any laws. Something like this, at this magnitude and with such political ramifications, needs to be air-tight and a slam-dunk. I don't see this as that. Heck, Jan 6th is closer to a slam-dunk and I don't see us prosecuting him on that either right now because it isn't that rock solid.

It's about as damning as the "big guy" reference with Hunter and Ukraine. An unbiased person would say in both instances that this is something fishy there but probably not enough to prosecute.

No…it’s not. For several reasons. Lol.

Asking to “recalculate” after you’ve been told by your own people not to mention Georgia election officials and the courts that there’s no evidence of voting fraud that would effect the outcome certainly sounds like he, the sitting president, was indeed asking someone to break laws.

Who knows if that’s enough to convict or if there’s additional related evidence of conspiracy but there’s enough to convene a grand jury and enforce subpoenas that were challenged.

[GannonFan]

It's about as damning as the "big guy" reference with Hunter and Ukraine. An unbiased person would say in both instances that this is something fishy there but probably not enough to prosecute.

No…it’s not. For several reasons. Lol.

Asking to “recalculate” after you’ve been told by your own people not to mention Georgia election officials and the courts that there’s no evidence of voting fraud that would effect the outcome certainly sounds like he, the sitting president, was indeed asking someone to break laws.

Who knows if that’s enough to convict or if there’s additional related evidence of conspiracy but there’s enough to convene a grand jury and enforce subpoenas that were challenged.

What power does the "sitting president" have over the secretary of state of Georgia? Unless I'm mistaken, he has no power over him.

As for the grand jury, what do we think this grand jury will glean that the "special" grand jury that came before it didn't already obtain? Again, if it was this clear cut, we wouldn't need all of these grand juries to find the criminal conduct.

[UNI88]

No…it’s not. For several reasons. Lol.

Asking to “recalculate” after you’ve been told by your own people not to mention Georgia election officials and the courts that there’s no evidence of voting fraud that would effect the outcome certainly sounds like he, the sitting president, was indeed asking someone to break laws.

Who knows if that’s enough to convict or if there’s additional related evidence of conspiracy but there’s enough to convene a grand jury and enforce subpoenas that were challenged.

What power does the "sitting president" have over the secretary of state of Georgia? Unless I'm mistaken, he has no power over him.

As for the grand jury, what do we think this grand jury will glean that the "special" grand jury that came before it didn't already obtain? Again, if it was this clear cut, we wouldn't need all of these grand juries to find the criminal conduct.

kalm's nitpicking to criticize trump and defend/deflect for Biden is similar to how BDK does the opposite.

[SeattleGriz]

It's about as damning as the "big guy" reference with Hunter and Ukraine. An unbiased person would say in both instances that this is something fishy there but probably not enough to prosecute.

No…it’s not. For several reasons. Lol.

Asking to “recalculate” after you’ve been told by your own people not to mention Georgia election officials and the courts that there’s no evidence of voting fraud that would effect the outcome certainly sounds like he, the sitting president, was indeed asking someone to break laws.

Who knows if that’s enough to convict or if there’s additional related evidence of conspiracy but there’s enough to convene a grand jury and enforce subpoenas that were challenged.

Bro. They have admitted they have more ballots than the margin of victory in which they cannot prove chain of custody. They cannot make that claim...but they did.