One-time visit; I'll just leave this here.

BHF23

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2005
99
1,069
1
The insanity, inaccuracy and use of bad data is far too much for any normal person would want to address. This election has been scrutinized and litigated more than any history. Your “analysis “ is a wish list with supposition and very analogies. Why I wasted any time stating the obvious is a mystery to me. Have a great life.
I wasn't going to do this either, but I thought your powerful, well-reasoned rebuttal also deserved a response. Let me know if I miss anything...

"The insanity..." OK...I'm with you so far....

"inaccuracy".... Not sure what you mean. I had exactly one point to make, and it was only my opinion. Whether you agree with it or not (apparently not), I believe I accurately expressed it.

"and use of bad data"... I admitted that I had not reviewed Navarro's notes and that I had done all I knew to do to verify his numbers...so the data might be good or bad; I don't know for sure. You don't either. But...Trump had that same data and I would presume he went forward trusting it was good. Neither of us can disprove that.

"...is far too much..." I think I addressed "inaccuracy" and "bad data," so we're back to "insanity" and some common ground again.

"for any normal person"... Ah...perhaps we're getting to the crux of the disconnect.

"would want to address." Disregarding the unusual syntax, which I believe to be immaterial, this seems to be a "you" issue. I can't explain it.

"This election has been scrutinized and litigated more than any (in) history." Irrelevant. Scrutinized? By whom? Much/most of it propaganda in my opinion, but that's irrelevant too. I don't need to be directed what to think; I'll look into it myself, thanks. And I said right up front that I've had long-standing contempt for corrupt judges. Nothing new for me, and my disgust for them still stands.
.
" 'Your 'analysis' " ... Quotation marks. Cute. Probably irrelevant to the discussion.

"is a wish list"... I'll take a moment here. Didn't know you were a mind reader too, but if you think I'm some kind of partisan hack, I'd refer you to the "Feckless" series I mentioned earlier. Read the "Tom Corbett" (Republican governor) installment. I not only tore him a new one, but threw in mention of the Republican corruption related to the Hershey Trust for good measure. I knew how I was going to end the series, and about halfway through it, LafayetteBear made an absolutely perfect post that I knew I was going to use word for word in the final (Edward Hintz) installment. I haven't seen him post in this thread; I would hope we might have had some goodwill built up from the "Feckless" series, or at least that he would view me as an honest correspondent who does his homework. At any rate, I don't start looking at these things with any kind of "wish." Maybe I end up being right, maybe I end up being wrong, or maybe I end up with some of both, but I just look for the truth. My OP here had exactly ONE point. Disagree or not, fine. But I came by it honestly. I think I've made very clear what I think about both sides, D and R.

"with supposition and very analogies." Fair evaluation. I'm sure there's some supposition in there; I tried to provide support where I could, and if anything trended toward pure opinion, I tried to identify it as such. As for "very analogies"? Sorry, can't decipher that one.

"Why I wasted any time stating the obvious is a mystery to me." Finally...something we can all agree on!

"Have a great life." I already admitted I'm bald and ugly. It's an uphill battle.

Hope I didn't miss anything.


SR/BHF
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,011
1
An altered state
I only started reading this board recently, haven't posted on it before, and probably won't again. Some might remember me from the McAndrew Board. I recognize a few of you. I had read the Freeh Report, recognized it for the garbage it was, and decided to look into it. I thought I'd take a couple weeks, see if I could figure out what really happened, and maybe write a few pages or so of analysis. Five years, two round trips from Georgia to State College and back, and over 1000 pages (about 140 of which were passed along to the Feds) later, I ended up posting a series ("Feckless") covering the trustees in place at the time because that's where the trail led me. I stopped pretty much because I had worked some with Ray Blehar in the process, and he was doing what I was doing, only better.

I was entirely apolitical until the 90s, when I became a single-issue voter against activist/corrupt judges for reasons entirely unrelated to politics. I'm pretty much still there. I'm a registered independent and honestly don't have much use for either party. I don't see things in terms of red and blue...more like black and white, right and wrong. And if I'm driving straight on "Candid," don't expect to see me make a left on "Tactful." (Barry Fenchak lite?) That "Feckless" series could have been one sentence: "Yep, Joe did it" if that's where my investigation led. I'm glad it didn't, but facts would have been facts. I've thought for a long time that the Democrat and Republican establishment are a whole lot more like each other than either of them are like you or me. I'm sure of it now.

I smelled a rat by about Page 3 of the Freeh Report (paraphrased: "We didn't talk to anybody who knew anything. Nevertheless, we're giving you a complete, comprehensive, balls on accurate account of the whole situation. Pinky swear."), and by about 7:00 a.m. the morning after the election, I got a whiff of that same aroma. So I started paying closer attention and doing some homework, reading up on laws, looking at transcripts of court cases, watching interviews and legislative hearings, etc. There's really only one point I want to make here; I'll try to do it as briefly as I can. (Too late for that, huh?)

Start with this. There are three possibilities: 1. There was no fraud in the election. (If that's your belief, you can stop reading now. Of course there was. There always is. For Pete's sake, the next honest election in Philadelphia will be the first. So just stop it.); 2. There was some fraud in the election, but not enough to change the result. (OK. I'm listening.); or 3. There was significant fraud in the election, enough to change the result. (Hey...I said I was listening. Whatta ya got?)

BIDEN 306 TRUMP 232

WISCONSIN (10 electoral votes) The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently ruled that the drop boxes are and were illegal. Those votes alone were enough to flip Wisconsin. (Over 500,000 questionable votes in Wisconsin altogether) BIDEN 296 TRUMP 242

GEORGIA (16 electoral votes) The number of underage (illegal) voters alone were enough to flip Georgia. (Over 600,000 questionable votes in Georgia altogether) BIDEN 280 TRUMP 258

ARIZONA (11 electoral votes) The number of non-citizen (illegal) voters alone were enough to flip Arizona. (Over 250,000 questionable votes in Arizona altogether) BIDEN 269 TRUMP 269

NEVADA (6 electoral votes) The number of voters who (illegally) double voted were enough to flip Nevada. (Over 200,000 questionable votes in Nevada altogether) TRUMP 275 BIDEN 263

MICHIGAN (16 electoral votes) The number of (illegal) voters with no registration numbers alone were enough to flip Michigan. The number of votes processed without observation were too. (Let's be real here. There is only one reason that every one of these states has a law requiring accommodation of poll observers. And it's the same only reason that anyone would interfere with observation.) TRUMP 288 BIDEN 250

So there's a case. The numbers of illegal votes shown above in those few states would have been enough to turn the election. I stopped at the low hanging fruit and hadn't even gotten to PENNSYLVANIA (20 electoral votes; nearly 1,000,000 questionable votes) or VIRGINIA (13 electoral votes; 300,000 votes flipped from TRUMP to BIDEN at about 5:00 the morning of November 4, compromised voting machines subject to outside manipulation (the ultimate backstop; proven in Antrim County, Michigan; I witnessed with my own two eyes a Chinese hacker with access in real time during the Georgia Senate runoff), the unhealthy percentage of adjudicated ballots, vehicles full of ballots showing up in the middle of the night (Michigan), for days afterward (Arizona), or "disappearing" altogether (Pennsylvania), etc. I think you get the idea. Evidence isn't proof...the other side gets to make a case too...but it is evidence. We've been told from November 4 forward there was none. Admit it...if you saw REPUBLICAN Ruby Freeman rolling boxes out from under that table in the middle of the night in Atlanta after DEMOCRAT observers had been sent home with enough ballots to flip the election from BIDEN to TRUMP...you'd be sure there was chicanery afoot. And you'd almost certainly be right.

My point is this: When Al Gore had issues with the 2000 election, all we heard from Democrats and the media was that "every vote must count." Fair enough. And whether you believe the 2020 election was stolen or not, Trump didn't make any of this stuff up and had the right...and I would argue, the obligation...to use every legal challenge (I can discuss each one, including January 6, but I won't) available to "save democracy" by ensuring that there were good and valid answers to these concerns, and that the election had indeed, been fair. But Trump supporters have been mocked, intimidated, threatened, disbarred, and arrested, and we've all just endured a one-sided, Communist-style show trial with threatened prosecution for crying out loud, as the cherry on top...for challenging an election where there was plenty of evidence that he very well might have won. All of that is very, very dangerous...and just plain wrong. My point (finally): Whether Trump actually won the election or not, he absolutely had valid reason to believe he did, with plenty of figures to back it up. The underlying narrative was/is "The Big Lie." No one....NO ONE...can possibly be sure of that. (A buddy of mine just fact checked me on that. He says I'm good.)

Yes, Trump called Brad Raffensperger and asked/pushed him to disqualify a number of illegal votes. Illegal votes. I read the NYT article, then listened to a recording of the call. A "Time" article I read suggests the Democrats were doing some pretty intense lobbying themselves about that time. After Raffensperger tap danced around it a time or two, Georgia Governor Kemp realized he was polling slightly behind COVID-19 and hinted one night that a recount/audit might not be a bad idea. The next day, a boyfriend of his daughter was blown up in his car. Not died in a crash. Blown up. So much for the recount/audit. The investigator (FBI or GBI?) assigned to the case had a very short life span himself, meeting an unfortunate demise a couple weeks later. All coincidence, no doubt. A less than persuasive phone call. A car blowing up. Which got more attention? Which would you prefer to experience?

My interest in this is 0% Donald Trump and 100% fair and honest elections. And before I go, I'll point out that there are more than a few people out there who are pretty sure the two instances I cited above were not the only times hackers were having their way with those voting machines. Interesting that neither Democrats nor Republicans want us anywhere near them. In fact, I daresay those machines and their continued use are being better protected than Hunter Biden. (OK...if you know me at all, you know I had to do that at least once.) Wonder why that would be? I'll leave with a message for both Democrats and Republicans: Surrrre....just give me a call any time for a campaign contribution! Could be fun!

Yeah...you can look for that check in the mail.

There. I said my piece. You guys can have the last word. And if you're inclined to ignore the material and attack me personally, have at it. I'm bald and ugly too.

Thanks for listening.


SR/BHF
This is the first time I heard about the boyfriend of the governor’s daughter being blown up. And the lead investigator dying a couple weeks later. Anyone have a link to these stories?
 

BHF23

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2005
99
1,069
1
This is the first time I heard about the boyfriend of the governor’s daughter being blown up. And the lead investigator dying a couple weeks later. Anyone have a link to these stories?
Spin,

Rather than send links, let me give you some background. Then you can search readily enough from what I give you here and find both "conspiracy" and "coincidence" theories. That way, you can draw your own conclusions without my seeming to inject my own opinion. You'll find reports slanted both ways.

This first part will be some background from memory; please forgive me if I'm slightly off. The Dominion machines were new to Georgia early in 2020. Sec of State Raffensperger paid a non-Government, private contractor Gabriel Sterling something like $10.75 million to run the election. (Researching the money and Sterling might prove interesting too.)

Pretty much as soon as the election here in Georgia was over, stories of all manner of shenanigans surfaced. You can get a good sampling of the types of allegations from the Navarro report. I recall that there was an issue with the voting machine in one county (I always get the county wrong from memory; I won't guess here). The biggest issues in the wind were the abuse of Zuckerberg's ballot boxes and a video from State Farm Arena that was circulated widely. Atlanta was one of the places that shut down (the story at the time was a broken water line), sent Republican observers home, then opened back up. A Democrat woman (Ruby Freeman; her daughter Shae Moss was also involved throughout the election) was seen pulling boxes of ballots out from under a table. The ballots were then processed without Republican observation. The two women were seen in another video passing a thumb drive around; I recall a third party, a man, involved in that also. That part is a little fuzzy to me now.

After great public outcry, Raffensperger agreed to a recount. However, he announced in advance that the results of the recount wouldn't matter; the original results were going to be reported anyway. It was reported that the precincts were directed to send in the original results no matter what they found. As you might guess, no one was satisfied. So Raffy said...OK...we'll look at a small random sampling from Cobb County. (The video was from Fulton County.) This, of course, also satisfied no one. The heat was on Raffensperger and Governor Kemp. On December 3, Kemp finally announced that they would look into it...don't remember exactly if he suggested a recount, audit, or just that they would investigate any serious allegations. Though I'm not sure exactly what he promised, the date is correct. December 3. (Later, on December 30, Jovan Pulitzer demonstrated in a Senate Committee hearing that a Chinese hacker...whom he was able to identify by name...had access to the voting machines at that very moment, while the Senate runoff election was still being conducted. Reportedly, windows were shot out at his home that night. Ray Blehar told me that his group monitored the runoff election and that the total number of votes decreased about 20 times during the night.)

The rest of this was researched before I typed it:

On December 4, Kemp's daughter Lucy's boyfriend, Harrison Deal (staffer of Sen. Kelly Loeffler) was killed in a car accident near Savannah. (Trump had a rally scheduled in Savannah the day after, I believe.) The Statesboro Herald reported that a flatbed truck had struck him from behind. Multiple witnesses from up to a mile away reported hearing an explosion. The car was engulfed in flames. The Herald: "Monday afternoon, Deal's body was escorted from the GBI crime lab in Pooler to Deal Funeral Directors in Statesboro."

There were no recount, no audit, and no investigations thereafter.

James O'Sullivan was a GBI crime scene specialist. A December 16, 2020 obituary said that O'Sullivan, 51, had passed away at his residence. A cause of death was not given. (I don't know that the GBI ever confirmed that he was working on the case; I think it's widely assumed that he was. I do think I remember seeing that reported in at least one news account, but don't hold me to it.)

That should be enough to point you in the right direction. You can draw your own conclusions from whatever you find.

Thanks for your interest.

SR/BHF
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,499
632
1
Spin,

Rather than send links, let me give you some background. Then you can search readily enough from what I give you here and find both "conspiracy" and "coincidence" theories. That way, you can draw your own conclusions without my seeming to inject my own opinion. You'll find reports slanted both ways.

This first part will be some background from memory; please forgive me if I'm slightly off. The Dominion machines were new to Georgia early in 2020. Sec of State Raffensperger paid a non-Government, private contractor Gabriel Sterling something like $10.75 million to run the election. (Researching the money and Sterling might prove interesting too.)

Pretty much as soon as the election here in Georgia was over, stories of all manner of shenanigans surfaced. You can get a good sampling of the types of allegations from the Navarro report. I recall that there was an issue with the voting machine in one county (I always get the county wrong from memory; I won't guess here). The biggest issues in the wind were the abuse of Zuckerberg's ballot boxes and a video from State Farm Arena that was circulated widely. Atlanta was one of the places that shut down (the story at the time was a broken water line), sent Republican observers home, then opened back up. A Democrat woman (Ruby Freeman; her daughter Shae Moss was also involved throughout the election) was seen pulling boxes of ballots out from under a table. The ballots were then processed without Republican observation. The two women were seen in another video passing a thumb drive around; I recall a third party, a man, involved in that also. That part is a little fuzzy to me now.

After great public outcry, Raffensperger agreed to a recount. However, he announced in advance that the results of the recount wouldn't matter; the original results were going to be reported anyway. It was reported that the precincts were directed to send in the original results no matter what they found. As you might guess, no one was satisfied. So Raffy said...OK...we'll look at a small random sampling from Cobb County. (The video was from Fulton County.) This, of course, also satisfied no one. The heat was on Raffensperger and Governor Kemp. On December 3, Kemp finally announced that they would look into it...don't remember exactly if he suggested a recount, audit, or just that they would investigate any serious allegations. Though I'm not sure exactly what he promised, the date is correct. December 3. (Later, on December 30, Jovan Pulitzer demonstrated in a Senate Committee hearing that a Chinese hacker...whom he was able to identify by name...had access to the voting machines at that very moment, while the Senate runoff election was still being conducted. Reportedly, windows were shot out at his home that night. Ray Blehar told me that his group monitored the runoff election and that the total number of votes decreased about 20 times during the night.)

The rest of this was researched before I typed it:

On December 4, Kemp's daughter Lucy's boyfriend, Harrison Deal (staffer of Sen. Kelly Loeffler) was killed in a car accident near Savannah. (Trump had a rally scheduled in Savannah the day after, I believe.) The Statesboro Herald reported that a flatbed truck had struck him from behind. Multiple witnesses from up to a mile away reported hearing an explosion. The car was engulfed in flames. The Herald: "Monday afternoon, Deal's body was escorted from the GBI crime lab in Pooler to Deal Funeral Directors in Statesboro."

There were no recount, no audit, and no investigations thereafter.

James O'Sullivan was a GBI crime scene specialist. A December 16, 2020 obituary said that O'Sullivan, 51, had passed away at his residence. A cause of death was not given. (I don't know that the GBI ever confirmed that he was working on the case; I think it's widely assumed that he was. I do think I remember seeing that reported in at least one news account, but don't hold me to it.)

That should be enough to point you in the right direction. You can draw your own conclusions from whatever you find.

Thanks for your interest.

SR/BHF
Typical QAnon bullshit “research”.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,208
6,115
1
I wasn't going to do this, but you asked some fair questions. Let me start my response by reiterating my original point: I didn't mean to suggest that I thought I was proving that Trump really won the election. I am saying that I have no doubt he believed that he did and pursued his challenges in good faith.

Where do I get my data? I read numerous reports, viewed numerous videos (including the blocking of observers in Philadelphia and Detroit, vehicles delivering boxes of ballots in the middle of the night in Detroit, the dead of night video from Atlanta, countless interviews from witnesses, 2000 Mules, etc.), and read numerous affidavits from some of the court cases, among other things. Then I contacted Ray Blehar to get his opinion on which of the information was good and which wasn't. After working with Ray on the Penn State stuff, I have the utmost faith in Ray's integrity. I saw him change his opinion on more than one occasion in his Penn State investigation when he got credible information that changed a previous view. He did an honest investigation. It's an area of expertise for him. He's a good man. Ray also did some work on the election, and I read a good bit of that work.

Ray vouched for the work of Peter Navarro, which is where I got most of the detail I posted in the original post. (Navarro has now been arrested for contempt of Congress.) Also got some from Ray's work and tried to cross check different sources when I could. I'll remind you again...my point is that Trump also had this information as he pursued his challenges in good faith. Maybe it would have flown in court, maybe not. But it was evidence. I did not have access to Navarro's notes, but I did what I could to verify his work. The other side would say he's a Trump guy. Of course he is. The (fair) question is whether his information is accurate. OK. Let's hear it in an honest courtroom and not rely on partisan fact checkers to have the final say.

Why are we subject to voting machines and 2000 Mules? We are subject to voting machines because these machines have been used successfully to steal elections all over the world for a number of years (maybe as long as 20 years or so), and we have politicians (R and D, from my belief) who are willing to use them, as well. My opinion is that those who have used them for personal purposes would not want to be exposed for obvious reasons. When I was working on the Penn State stuff, I remember having two chilling moments: the first was when I realized "These guys don't intend to be held accountable for what they've done." The second...which was worse for me was when I realized "Uh oh... They don't intend to stop." That perfectly describes the way I would answer your question about why we're subject to the machines now. They don't intend to be held accountable for what they've done. They don't intend to stop. That's opinion. Oh, I also saw some of the video and emails of Eric Coomer, the Dominion literature, demonstrations of how easy it was to hack the machines, interviews from poll workers who witnessed internet connections during the election, and live in real time on the internet stream a Chinese hacker identified by name by Jovan Pulitzer in front of the Georgia Senate during the Senate runoff election. (Ray told me his group saw about 20 occasions during the runoff where Perdue's vote totals were reduced overnight in the runoff. Hope I'm not betraying a confidence there.) Anyway, I'll stray away from my original point for a moment and say I believe the machines are the ultimate problem. The Mules provided the ballots (some legit, no doubt...some not, no doubt), and the machines directed where they went. That's opinion based on research.

2000 Mules...to answer your question, I'll just say this. We are subject to it because people were willing to cheat and probably thought (knew?) they would be protected. I saw the movie and looked at the fact checks afterward to see if critics could poke holes in it. One local politician (I forget from where) said he could debunk it because he probably rode by one of the boxes half a dozen times himself, totally innocently. Oh. Sorry. You win. So make it "1999 Mules." I don't call that "debunking." When Brad Raffensperger was used as your fact checking source, that's all I need to know. He should be in jail. That's also an opinion based on research. (Ray also vouched for Dinesh's work.)

"The other side would say in almost every court case, Trump lost." Let me start with one that Trump won to illustrate my response to this, the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that the ballot boxes were illegal. The vote was 4-3, with all conservative justices voting with the majority and all liberal justices voting against. The other side would say it was a partisan ruling. The law seemed pretty clear cut to me, and I'd wonder why a case like that wouldn't generate a 7-0 vote, but let's grant them that it was a partisan ruling. That certainly happens. (I'll refer you to my original post: I'm a one-issue voter...on THIS issue.) There was an early case brought in Michigan. I looked at all the affidavits, video with witnesses, etc. A ton of stuff. The judge not only dismissed the case but also ruled that the witnesses were not credible. He never even saw or heard them. I did. They struck me as being decent people who were minding their own business serving their communities. The ruling could only have been meant to make an appeal more difficult. It could not have been based on an honest review of the evidence. I'd say that was a partisan ruling. I'd also say that there were plenty more of those. Most of the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds. Virtually all, if not all, of the evidence on Trump's side has never seen the light of day in a courtroom. Or at least in a fair courtroom. And I'll go back to my original point again. Trump had every reason to trust his evidence, and I believe he pursued his challenges in good faith. (And legally, by the way. I followed the process step by step, informed myself as well as I could on the legal aspects of it, researching the laws myself rather than relying on news reports whenever I could.)

So...I hope I answered your questions. I'm not a genius, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a regular guy who went to the trouble of doing all I could to let the evidence inform my opinions rather than letting a preconceived opinion inform my view of the evidence.

Thanks for your response.

SR/BHF

You're a fvcking moron
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,586
21,206
1
LOL... Paoli with so much constructive conversation..............

You're such a f'ing pathetic loser............
... says the guy who lives in a small hovel with an unpaved driveway, in the middle of nowhere, with tomatoes as his only friends. (The guys in the parking lot of the Ann Arbor Olive Garden don't count.)
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,409
24,870
1
2020evidence.org
This is the first time I heard about the boyfriend of the governor’s daughter being blown up. And the lead investigator dying a couple weeks later. Anyone have a link to these stories?
Some links for your consideration:


Around this same time massive fraud and irregularities were being discovered in GA:

 
  • Like
Reactions: john4psu

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,936
25,604
1
There’s more than enough evidence to do a deep dive into the situation. Evidence that points to massive fraud. So you investigate deeper .
So what happens when you can’t match voters to ballots? Voters to residences? Well that tells you something, doesn’t it?
There’s been proof of both of those instances . Lack of proper safe keeping of ballots prove there was fraud . Disregarding rules allowing ballots that would normally be rejected also proves fraud. Why disregard security protocols if you don’t wave to cheat?
 

Steve G

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,188
1,413
1
I only started reading this board recently, haven't posted on it before, and probably won't again. Some might remember me from the McAndrew Board. I recognize a few of you. I had read the Freeh Report, recognized it for the garbage it was, and decided to look into it. I thought I'd take a couple weeks, see if I could figure out what really happened, and maybe write a few pages or so of analysis. Five years, two round trips from Georgia to State College and back, and over 1000 pages (about 140 of which were passed along to the Feds) later, I ended up posting a series ("Feckless") covering the trustees in place at the time because that's where the trail led me. I stopped pretty much because I had worked some with Ray Blehar in the process, and he was doing what I was doing, only better.

I was entirely apolitical until the 90s, when I became a single-issue voter against activist/corrupt judges for reasons entirely unrelated to politics. I'm pretty much still there. I'm a registered independent and honestly don't have much use for either party. I don't see things in terms of red and blue...more like black and white, right and wrong. And if I'm driving straight on "Candid," don't expect to see me make a left on "Tactful." (Barry Fenchak lite?) That "Feckless" series could have been one sentence: "Yep, Joe did it" if that's where my investigation led. I'm glad it didn't, but facts would have been facts. I've thought for a long time that the Democrat and Republican establishment are a whole lot more like each other than either of them are like you or me. I'm sure of it now.

I smelled a rat by about Page 3 of the Freeh Report (paraphrased: "We didn't talk to anybody who knew anything. Nevertheless, we're giving you a complete, comprehensive, balls on accurate account of the whole situation. Pinky swear."), and by about 7:00 a.m. the morning after the election, I got a whiff of that same aroma. So I started paying closer attention and doing some homework, reading up on laws, looking at transcripts of court cases, watching interviews and legislative hearings, etc. There's really only one point I want to make here; I'll try to do it as briefly as I can. (Too late for that, huh?)

Start with this. There are three possibilities: 1. There was no fraud in the election. (If that's your belief, you can stop reading now. Of course there was. There always is. For Pete's sake, the next honest election in Philadelphia will be the first. So just stop it.); 2. There was some fraud in the election, but not enough to change the result. (OK. I'm listening.); or 3. There was significant fraud in the election, enough to change the result. (Hey...I said I was listening. Whatta ya got?)

BIDEN 306 TRUMP 232

WISCONSIN (10 electoral votes) The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently ruled that the drop boxes are and were illegal. Those votes alone were enough to flip Wisconsin. (Over 500,000 questionable votes in Wisconsin altogether) BIDEN 296 TRUMP 242

GEORGIA (16 electoral votes) The number of underage (illegal) voters alone were enough to flip Georgia. (Over 600,000 questionable votes in Georgia altogether) BIDEN 280 TRUMP 258

ARIZONA (11 electoral votes) The number of non-citizen (illegal) voters alone were enough to flip Arizona. (Over 250,000 questionable votes in Arizona altogether) BIDEN 269 TRUMP 269

NEVADA (6 electoral votes) The number of voters who (illegally) double voted were enough to flip Nevada. (Over 200,000 questionable votes in Nevada altogether) TRUMP 275 BIDEN 263

MICHIGAN (16 electoral votes) The number of (illegal) voters with no registration numbers alone were enough to flip Michigan. The number of votes processed without observation were too. (Let's be real here. There is only one reason that every one of these states has a law requiring accommodation of poll observers. And it's the same only reason that anyone would interfere with observation.) TRUMP 288 BIDEN 250

So there's a case. The numbers of illegal votes shown above in those few states would have been enough to turn the election. I stopped at the low hanging fruit and hadn't even gotten to PENNSYLVANIA (20 electoral votes; nearly 1,000,000 questionable votes) or VIRGINIA (13 electoral votes; 300,000 votes flipped from TRUMP to BIDEN at about 5:00 the morning of November 4, compromised voting machines subject to outside manipulation (the ultimate backstop; proven in Antrim County, Michigan; I witnessed with my own two eyes a Chinese hacker with access in real time during the Georgia Senate runoff), the unhealthy percentage of adjudicated ballots, vehicles full of ballots showing up in the middle of the night (Michigan), for days afterward (Arizona), or "disappearing" altogether (Pennsylvania), etc. I think you get the idea. Evidence isn't proof...the other side gets to make a case too...but it is evidence. We've been told from November 4 forward there was none. Admit it...if you saw REPUBLICAN Ruby Freeman rolling boxes out from under that table in the middle of the night in Atlanta after DEMOCRAT observers had been sent home with enough ballots to flip the election from BIDEN to TRUMP...you'd be sure there was chicanery afoot. And you'd almost certainly be right.

My point is this: When Al Gore had issues with the 2000 election, all we heard from Democrats and the media was that "every vote must count." Fair enough. And whether you believe the 2020 election was stolen or not, Trump didn't make any of this stuff up and had the right...and I would argue, the obligation...to use every legal challenge (I can discuss each one, including January 6, but I won't) available to "save democracy" by ensuring that there were good and valid answers to these concerns, and that the election had indeed, been fair. But Trump supporters have been mocked, intimidated, threatened, disbarred, and arrested, and we've all just endured a one-sided, Communist-style show trial with threatened prosecution for crying out loud, as the cherry on top...for challenging an election where there was plenty of evidence that he very well might have won. All of that is very, very dangerous...and just plain wrong. My point (finally): Whether Trump actually won the election or not, he absolutely had valid reason to believe he did, with plenty of figures to back it up. The underlying narrative was/is "The Big Lie." No one....NO ONE...can possibly be sure of that. (A buddy of mine just fact checked me on that. He says I'm good.)

Yes, Trump called Brad Raffensperger and asked/pushed him to disqualify a number of illegal votes. Illegal votes. I read the NYT article, then listened to a recording of the call. A "Time" article I read suggests the Democrats were doing some pretty intense lobbying themselves about that time. After Raffensperger tap danced around it a time or two, Georgia Governor Kemp realized he was polling slightly behind COVID-19 and hinted one night that a recount/audit might not be a bad idea. The next day, a boyfriend of his daughter was blown up in his car. Not died in a crash. Blown up. So much for the recount/audit. The investigator (FBI or GBI?) assigned to the case had a very short life span himself, meeting an unfortunate demise a couple weeks later. All coincidence, no doubt. A less than persuasive phone call. A car blowing up. Which got more attention? Which would you prefer to experience?

My interest in this is 0% Donald Trump and 100% fair and honest elections. And before I go, I'll point out that there are more than a few people out there who are pretty sure the two instances I cited above were not the only times hackers were having their way with those voting machines. Interesting that neither Democrats nor Republicans want us anywhere near them. In fact, I daresay those machines and their continued use are being better protected than Hunter Biden. (OK...if you know me at all, you know I had to do that at least once.) Wonder why that would be? I'll leave with a message for both Democrats and Republicans: Surrrre....just give me a call any time for a campaign contribution! Could be fun!

Yeah...you can look for that check in the mail.

There. I said my piece. You guys can have the last word. And if you're inclined to ignore the material and attack me personally, have at it. I'm bald and ugly too.

Thanks for listening.


SR/BHF
I have to say this thread is pure unadulterated RWNJ, fever dream, conspiracy theory fantasy. Pure entertainment gold!! I wish I had time to go through and give all of you likes and atta boys!! (sorry if I misgender any of you) Honestly wonder how any of you all get dressed in the morning much less hold down jobs and adult relationships!! Keep up the good work fellows (again sorry for the misgendering) and the laughs rolling in!!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: tgar and psuted

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,409
24,870
1
2020evidence.org
There’s a lot more evidence. My friend was working in Maricopa county and found over fifty voters registered at an abandoned foreclosed shack. That’s just one example.
Speaking of Maricopa…
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,764
23,317
1
I have to say this tread is pure unadulterated RWNJ, fever dream, conspiracy theory fantasy. Pure entertainment gold!! I wish I had time to go through and give all of you likes and atta boys!! (sorry if I misgender any of you) Honestly wonder how any off you all get dressed in the morning much less hold down jobs and adult relationships!! Keep up the good work fellows (again sorry for the misgendering) and the laughs rolling in!!
The biggest laugh has been on the American people having to live thru the economic malaise and foreign embarrassment by on by this incompetent and senile illegitimate fraud.
 

Elwood Blues

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2002
1,995
1,226
1
Look, I'm a Republican and I knew this was BS from the start. I ask those of you inclined to believe there's any merit to Trump's argument - if a Dem acted exactly as Trump did and made the same claims under the same circumstances, how would you react? Also, have you heard a single FACT that backs up Trump's claims? In the call to the Ga. Secy of State, Trump actually says he knows he won because he got more people to his rallies than Biden did. He's also fond of saying "everybody knows" that he won "by a lot." Very scientific.

Look here's all you really need to know. Judge Matt Brann (M.D., PA) presided over Rudi's embarrassing attempt to have the PA vote thrown out. Rudi didn't even understand the question about proper standard of review. Anyway, Brann is a member of the Federalist Society. He's very conservative. (don't tell me he was appointed by Obama - it was part of a deal whereby the D's got one and the R's got one). Brann looked at the evidence and concluded as follows:

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together . . . . This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

What was it, 60+ judges all across the nation agreed? Case closed. Move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgar

BHF23

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2005
99
1,069
1
Look, I'm a Republican and I knew this was BS from the start. I ask those of you inclined to believe there's any merit to Trump's argument - if a Dem acted exactly as Trump did and made the same claims under the same circumstances, how would you react? Also, have you heard a single FACT that backs up Trump's claims? In the call to the Ga. Secy of State, Trump actually says he knows he won because he got more people to his rallies than Biden did. He's also fond of saying "everybody knows" that he won "by a lot." Very scientific.

Look here's all you really need to know. Judge Matt Brann (M.D., PA) presided over Rudi's embarrassing attempt to have the PA vote thrown out. Rudi didn't even understand the question about proper standard of review. Anyway, Brann is a member of the Federalist Society. He's very conservative. (don't tell me he was appointed by Obama - it was part of a deal whereby the D's got one and the R's got one). Brann looked at the evidence and concluded as follows:

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together . . . . This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

What was it, 60+ judges all across the nation agreed? Case closed. Move on.
You were civil here, and I take your post at face value, so I'll respond to some of your questions. I started this thread to make one point: that I believe Trump thought he had a valid case. I think he had every reason to believe that. Period. That said, I'll try to address your points as well as I can; if we end up disagreeing, I'm fine with that.

First, if a Democrat made the same claims under the same circumstances, how would I react? I made another post last night that answers that: I'm an Independent, and I don't care about Trump one way or the other, so with everything I've learned about this, without question I'd come to the same conclusions with a Democrat. And I'll turn it around a bit to support my point. If Trump had rolled a couple of van loads of ballots of suspicious origin into Detroit in the middle of the night and had his folks count them without any observers around, wouldn't you find it a little sketchy? Of course, you would. I would. Because it would be. Doesn't matter who did it. I've said it before: There's only one reason there are laws to assure the other side is allowed observers present. And there's only one reason you'd want to prevent it. Doesn't matter who's who.

Have I heard a single fact to support Trump's claims? Yes, plenty...to the extent I can verify those claims, which I have made every effort to do. I go past an initial report to the actual interview whenever I can; I'll research a law myself, look at affidavits, check the legal documents. Consult with people I respect. In fact, I learned a little this afternoon researching the Pennsylvania case after reading your post. I was more familiar with some of the other cases.

In the OP, I picked out a handful of illegal votes that would have flipped several states...enough to change the election and make my point. The Wisconsin Supreme Court just ruled that the ballot boxes are and were illegal. They're not going to do anything about it. In effect, "You're guilty of robbing the bank, but we're going to let you keep the money." Wisconsin had other issues; Gableman found fraud in 92,000 votes from nursing homes, and I believe it was he who found abuses in indefinitely confined voters to the tune of 216,000 votes. (The Democratic governor spit in his face, but I think his research is still good.) Any of these bundles of votes totaled far more than the 20,682 margin.

You posted a couple of Trump's quotes in his call to Raffensperger above. I agree that the quotes are accurate and that they do little to support the idea that Georgia was stolen. I read the report in the New York Times when it came out, and I also listened to a recording of the phone call. I live in Georgia and was very familiar with the reports of fraud, the video from Fulton County, and the sequence of events that followed. Raffensperger stonewalled any recount or audit, not fooling anybody. With that as background, I had a good idea about where fraudulent votes might be found and whether or not there might be enough to make a difference. My opinion, but I think the quotes you cited were pretty much throwaways. The dialogue I thought was more significant had to do with asking/prodding Raffensperger to find several thousand votes (I took that to mean as opposed to doing a full audit or recount, certainly not to disqualify legitimate votes), and (from memory) reminding Raffensperger that he could be in legal trouble if he certified a fraudulent election. It didn't strike me as threatening...more like appealing to Raffensperger's sense of right and wrong...but I could understand if someone else took that part differently. As for facts, here are some numbers Trump had available when he made that call to Raffensperger: underage voters-66,247; dead voters-10,315; felons-2,560; out of state voters-20,312; ghost voters-15,700; non-registered voters-2,403. Those are illegal voters. Underage is underage. Dead is dead. The margin of victory in Georgia was 10,779. My take in listening to that call was that he wanted Raffensperger to do what he needed to do to satisfy himself that about 11,000 of those illegal votes ought to be disqualified. I haven't physically examined those ballots myself, but I would be happy to drive to Atlanta to assist in such an effort. (Another 500,000 Georgia votes are in question.)

Wisconsin is 10 electoral votes. Georgia is 16. Arizona is 11; they counted the votes of 36,743 non-citizens, illegal voters. Margin was 10,457. They also had 11,676 overvotes, approximately 150,000 mail-in votes from voters who registered after the deadline. (One witness reported that ballots were being returned daily for up to 10 days after the election.) Go a couple posts up; there's video of a guy deleting data from the voting machine in Maricopa County before it was turned over for government inspection. That's 11 more electoral votes. That gets the electoral vote from 306-232 to 269-269. Nevada is the easiest place to go from here. Double voters (42,284), non-Nevadans (19,218), illegal aliens (4,000), and dead voters (1,506)...all illegal...were about twice the amount of the margin (33,596) necessary. That's 275 Trump, 263 Biden. No question about the legality of any of those categories of votes. Maybe those numbers are bogus, but they're easily verifiable. And whatever 60+ judges said does nothing to change any of that for me. I won't go into Michigan, Pennsylvania (I can still find 80,660 votes without the hindrance to observers, but it's a closer call), or even several other states. I haven't even mentioned the voting machines/software, and I believe those explain everything. In fact, the voting machines/software pretty much make all the rest of this moot. That's more complicated and harder to prove, though, especially in a format like this.

"Look, here's all you really need to know." I disagree. But let's start there. I do have to mostly agree with your assessment of this. I didn't get to the law itself, or even the pleadings or the final order, but I think I get the gist of the complaint and the rationale for the ruling. I'll concede the point to avoid digging in any further. The article I read said the complaint was based on interference with observers, but I'll paraphrase. Hope this is close: Whatever they chose to let the observers see or not see was their own business. So go pound sand. I checked the laws for all the battleground states some months ago. All had laws mandating provisions for observers, with language and exact requirements varying some from state to state. Apparently, Pennsylvania made some changes (along with several other changes...I'll leave that alone for now) taking all the teeth out of theirs. Basically, there's no requirement for accommodating meaningful observation. Welcome wild, wild west. And I see the politicians are so far succeeding in retaining all the relaxed procedures they were able to implement in 2020. I don't know if you ever have before (from what I know of Philadelphia, probably not), but you'll never see a fair election in Pennsylvania again. Good luck with that.

What honestly baffles me is that someone can't look at this objectively and at least see where the other side has some questions. I'm sure some do and are just pushing their agenda and/or trying to shut people up for one reason or another. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, other than that the other side is not just making stuff up. Some of us would like to prevent what is happening (has happened?) in Pennsylvania and maybe have a fair election or two more in our future. If we don't have fair elections, we don't have much of anything. And I don't doubt that both sides will regret that in the long run.

Close the case and move on if you like. But there's nothing wrong with the people who believe otherwise and choose not to. Working to ensure (regain?) fair elections is noble pursuit. And seriously...thanks for posting. It was (or at least seemed?) respectful, and I learned something from the research.

SR/BHF
 
Last edited:

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,936
25,604
1
Look, I'm a Republican and I knew this was BS from the start. I ask those of you inclined to believe there's any merit to Trump's argument - if a Dem acted exactly as Trump did and made the same claims under the same circumstances, how would you react? Also, have you heard a single FACT that backs up Trump's claims? In the call to the Ga. Secy of State, Trump actually says he knows he won because he got more people to his rallies than Biden did. He's also fond of saying "everybody knows" that he won "by a lot." Very scientific.

Look here's all you really need to know. Judge Matt Brann (M.D., PA) presided over Rudi's embarrassing attempt to have the PA vote thrown out. Rudi didn't even understand the question about proper standard of review. Anyway, Brann is a member of the Federalist Society. He's very conservative. (don't tell me he was appointed by Obama - it was part of a deal whereby the D's got one and the R's got one). Brann looked at the evidence and concluded as follows:

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together . . . . This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

What was it, 60+ judges all across the nation agreed? Case closed. Move on.
BS, there were way too many anomalies that pointed to fraud combined with removing security safeguards for ballots that make fraud very likely to damn well likely. The OP has laid it out quite well.
I know one private investigator who looked into it in Maricopa county and his findings line up with the OP's.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,409
24,870
1
2020evidence.org
Look, I'm a Republican and I knew this was BS from the start. I ask those of you inclined to believe there's any merit to Trump's argument - if a Dem acted exactly as Trump did and made the same claims under the same circumstances, how would you react? Also, have you heard a single FACT that backs up Trump's claims? In the call to the Ga. Secy of State, Trump actually says he knows he won because he got more people to his rallies than Biden did. He's also fond of saying "everybody knows" that he won "by a lot." Very scientific.

Look here's all you really need to know. Judge Matt Brann (M.D., PA) presided over Rudi's embarrassing attempt to have the PA vote thrown out. Rudi didn't even understand the question about proper standard of review. Anyway, Brann is a member of the Federalist Society. He's very conservative. (don't tell me he was appointed by Obama - it was part of a deal whereby the D's got one and the R's got one). Brann looked at the evidence and concluded as follows:

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together . . . . This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

What was it, 60+ judges all across the nation agreed? Case closed. Move on.
Nothing to see here right? This is perfectly normal for someone who got the most votes ever?

RyqtZNhO.jpeg
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,936
25,604
1
Look, I'm a Republican and I knew this was BS from the start. I ask those of you inclined to believe there's any merit to Trump's argument - if a Dem acted exactly as Trump did and made the same claims under the same circumstances, how would you react? Also, have you heard a single FACT that backs up Trump's claims? In the call to the Ga. Secy of State, Trump actually says he knows he won because he got more people to his rallies than Biden did. He's also fond of saying "everybody knows" that he won "by a lot." Very scientific.

Look here's all you really need to know. Judge Matt Brann (M.D., PA) presided over Rudi's embarrassing attempt to have the PA vote thrown out. Rudi didn't even understand the question about proper standard of review. Anyway, Brann is a member of the Federalist Society. He's very conservative. (don't tell me he was appointed by Obama - it was part of a deal whereby the D's got one and the R's got one). Brann looked at the evidence and concluded as follows:

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together . . . . This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

What was it, 60+ judges all across the nation agreed? Case closed. Move on.


 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

john4psu

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2003
11,203
7,671
1
Look, I'm a Republican and I knew this was BS from the start. I ask those of you inclined to believe there's any merit to Trump's argument - if a Dem acted exactly as Trump did and made the same claims under the same circumstances, how would you react? Also, have you heard a single FACT that backs up Trump's claims? In the call to the Ga. Secy of State, Trump actually says he knows he won because he got more people to his rallies than Biden did. He's also fond of saying "everybody knows" that he won "by a lot." Very scientific.

Look here's all you really need to know. Judge Matt Brann (M.D., PA) presided over Rudi's embarrassing attempt to have the PA vote thrown out. Rudi didn't even understand the question about proper standard of review. Anyway, Brann is a member of the Federalist Society. He's very conservative. (don't tell me he was appointed by Obama - it was part of a deal whereby the D's got one and the R's got one). Brann looked at the evidence and concluded as follows:

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together . . . . This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

What was it, 60+ judges all across the nation agreed? Case closed. Move on.
Boc4cJV.jpg
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,936
25,604
1
They deserve separate posts, first Larry's readers responses to their experience with fraud for those who work with it, trying to prevent it etc.

One response:
I’ve been in infosec for over 10 years now (at least I’ve had my CISSP that long). It’s just standard practice to assume that any hole in information security will be exploited eventually. I can think of a number of ways to game the election system in the US without having to think hard. Or at all, really. Seems like there’s solid evidence to suggest each technique I’ve come up with was used somewhere.

#

Pa. had 0 election security on mail in ballots, it was easy to exploit that and the other swing states.
 

Waltwam

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 28, 2001
6,967
3,150
1
Erie, PA
And what has been done thus far (since the previous election) to ensure the next one is legit? 🤔
If there is not a major turnover in November, in light of all that this administration has done to tear us apart, I will know for certain that our elections are totally corrupt. There is no way the majority of Americans are dumb enough to allow these people to remain in control of our government!!!!
 
Last edited:

S.C. LionsFan

Member
Gold Member
Oct 11, 2010
6
4
1
Anyone who believes this past election was fair and without issues should look real hard in the mirror and ask theirselves if they truly believe those results. Far too many last minute Covid changes to say that election was fair and correct.
1. I also believe that the Freeh
 

S.C. LionsFan

Member
Gold Member
Oct 11, 2010
6
4
1
I believe the Freeh report was extremely flawed. I think that Joe Paterno is the greatest college football coach in history. I also believe that Joe Paterno did the right thing when he was informed about Sandusky and he followed the correct protocol. PSU treated Paterno unfairly and panicked. They threw Joe under the bus. A horrible way to treat someone who was a great man who was honest and had tremendous integrity.

What the idiot wrote about the election being stolen is laughable. Donald Trump is a coward. He is a lying enormous ball of gas. He is a con artist and used the presidency to grift millions from suckers. He has always been a con artist. He had a university that never existed and stole people's money. He had a charity event to raise money for the wounded warrior foundation, and he pulled another of his grifts. He used the money to pay off his campaign expenses. It goes on and on. His father taught him to never say that he lost. His father was a racist and associated with the KKK. Trump is a manipulative narcissist and has no capacity for feeling bad about lying and stealing. And the thing he does as much as lying is whining and bitching and how unfairly he is treated. He whines and whines. He never stops, it's endless. He steals steals classified documents and takes them and places them around his house in Florida. He does it. No other president has done that. It is illegal. Top secret documents. And he will use them to make money. He probably already has. And even though HE took them, and The National Archives spent over a year asking for them back, he stalls, gives them some but not all of them. Again, it just goes on and on with trump. And he is whining of course about how everyone is out to get him. Poor innocent trump. He's full of crap and so is the idiot who wrote the first post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaoliLion

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,936
25,604
1
I believe the Freeh report was extremely flawed. I think that Joe Paterno is the greatest college football coach in history. I also believe that Joe Paterno did the right thing when he was informed about Sandusky and he followed the correct protocol. PSU treated Paterno unfairly and panicked. They threw Joe under the bus. A horrible way to treat someone who was a great man who was honest and had tremendous integrity.

What the idiot wrote about the election being stolen is laughable. Donald Trump is a coward. He is a lying enormous ball of gas. He is a con artist and used the presidency to grift millions from suckers. He has always been a con artist. He had a university that never existed and stole people's money. He had a charity event to raise money for the wounded warrior foundation, and he pulled another of his grifts. He used the money to pay off his campaign expenses. It goes on and on. His father taught him to never say that he lost. His father was a racist and associated with the KKK. Trump is a manipulative narcissist and has no capacity for feeling bad about lying and stealing. And the thing he does as much as lying is whining and bitching and how unfairly he is treated. He whines and whines. He never stops, it's endless. He steals steals classified documents and takes them and places them around his house in Florida. He does it. No other president has done that. It is illegal. Top secret documents. And he will use them to make money. He probably already has. And even though HE took them, and The National Archives spent over a year asking for them back, he stalls, gives them some but not all of them. Again, it just goes on and on with trump. And he is whining of course about how everyone is out to get him. Poor innocent trump. He's full of crap and so is the idiot who wrote the first post.
About everything you believe is wrong .
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Ski and roswelllion

Latest posts