Hodad

Gaslighting? I think you're projecting. There was extensive violence to both people and property and it's well documented on video. 100+ Capitol Police officers injured. Deaths associated with the event. And people aren't just "in any kind of trouble," they're going to prison with serious time.

Sorry, but you're simply ignorant of the facts. Check a dictionary and you'll find that Jan 6 fits the definition of insurrection quite nicely. It's been identified as an insurrection in 20+ court cases. It's been identified as an insurrection in legislation. That ship has sailed. You're just pissing in the wind. And frankly, the insurrection was a lesser threat to the Republic than the the quiet coup attempted in the background. Mike Pence's commitment to the constitution is the only reason we still have a proper country. His politics were awful, but when everything was on the line he put country first, and I'll always give him credit for that.

Indeed, even weirder than Trump planning this stuff is the idea that average Americans will embrace a dictator if they think he would hurt their "enemies." Or in this case, average Canadians. We've all seen this movie before and we all know how it ends, but they're still rushing toward it with open arms.?‍♂️

No, I think most people with even a passing interest in politics are aware of that thoroughly debunked piece of garbage. Tons of conspiracy thinking, and not a shred of evidence. No one from that video was shown doing anything illegal and no one was charged, let alone prosecuted or convicted. AFAIK, the only legal proceeding related to 2000 mules is the defamation suit filed against the creeps who produced it for lying about the people they depicted. You should probably stop paying people to lie to you.

This is not a secret. He and his cronies tried to sabotage the vote certification with an illegal slate of fake electors and a violent insurrection. The Eastman memo is often called the "coup memo" because that's exactly what it lays out.

You are lying, top to bottom, as usual. Just like, diarrhea of dishonesty. It's comical. And disgusting. 1. Mueller DID NOT say there was no evidence of collusion. He pushed back on Barr's characterization. 2. Crowdstrike published an entire article to set the record straight, so people like you and your garbage media would stop misrepresenting their findings and the testimony. They do know it was hacked. 3. They do know exactly who did it. COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.” 4. They do know who ordered it: Trump's idol, Vladimir Putin. The Senate report states on page 48: “The Committee found that specific intelligence as well as open source assessments support the assessment that President Putin approved and directed aspects of this influence campaign.” You're wrong about every single point. And on every single point, you've been corrected multiple times. You're either too thick to take in new information or too dishonest to talk about facts that make the Trump campaign look even more guilty. Because guess what, the guy Manafort was having all those clandestine meetings and communications with--Kilimnik, was almost certainly involved in both the influence campaign and the hack and leak. Just ignore it all and shout "no collusion" over and over again. It's "worked" so well to make these facts disappear.

No, you didn't. ? Like I told you before, one person was found guilty of illegal voting in Cuyahoga county, and it was a Trump voter voting in-person, absentee and also in Florida.

Then pick someone who actually believes in those things, not the man who tried to stage a coup.

Eh, some people have values and principles that are more important than "win at all costs."

No, the alternative would be anybody else. I think Republicans would do well to move on to someone who is both authentically conservative and a decent human being. Take off the track suit and put down the kool-aid and take a look around. Conservatives existed long before whatever Trump is and they'll exist long after he's incarcerated or has passed away from age and being rotten inside.

No, it's really pure nonsense. There are lots of conservatives who are anti-Trump, who think he's unfit for any office, let alone the office. But in your mind apparently there is no conservative worldview or room for disagreement within it. It's Trumpism or hit the road.

Read that back to yourself out loud. You're literally saying that the only way to be conservative/on the political right, is to support Donald J. Trump. Think about that and then ponder why we think you are in a Trump cult. All of conservative political "thinking" boiled down to just one wildly flawed individual personality, who was politically agnostic and nominally a Democrat up until the breeze blew the other direction. Pretty farked up.

1. Of course it did. 900 pages of Senate report documenting the many secret meetings and relationships and information exchanges with the very people waging an interference campaign against American citizens say that you're full of crap. 2. Yes there is. It's definitive. Read the report, or just keep lying. They know exactly who did it. They know exactly who ordered it. 3. Yes, strategy. I quoted the report. I linked to the report. If you choose to remain ignorant, that's on you. You're another wild conspiracy theory theorist who will make up gobs of sketchy "evidence" when it feels convenient, but will completely shut out actual evidence when it's presented in black and white

Bullshit. Regardless of your willful denial of collusion with Russia Manafort was charged and convicted with multiple financial crimes--already found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now you cheer that a criminal escaped accountability. is there anything you won't rationalize? And yes, it certainly was to prevent him from flipping. As soon as talk of a pardon went public, that's when Manafort stopped cooperating with his plea deal. If Trump were innocent and unaware he should have been absolutely furious with Manafort and Stone for undertaking secret meetings with the Russians that would undermine his legitimacy and his agenda. Instead, he absolved them of their actual crimes. How does Trump react to breaches of loyalty and trust? That's right he storms, rages and publicly denounces. But in this case, for two men who had--allegedly without his knowledge--betrayed his trust and put his political ambitions in jeopardy, he was suddenly filled with grace and mercy, lol. That's a story too far out of character for even you to believe. Deep down even you know it was transactional. It was one guy before he joined the investigation. And there was obviously no "insurance policy." You're apparently more easily swayed by a FOX news sound bite than 900 pages of evidence in the Senate report. Bwahahaha. GTFO

My concern has zero to do with Hillary losing. I think that interference was a factor in a close election. I think the hack and leak was particularly harmful. BUT none of that is the point. The point is that you are willing--eager even--to overlook an incredible amount of evidence that the Trump campaign was aiding the Russian interference efforts and in coordinating the assistance from the hack and leak. And then a US President pardoned the people who had done these things on our behalf and lavished praise on the brutal dictator who ordered these attacks on American democracy--these assaults on the American people. And the fact that two people in the FBI sent personal messages about how Trump was a unfit for office is another irrelevant deflection. More than half of Americans agree with that. They also said mean things about Chelsea Clinton and Eric Holder, among others. Boo hoo. People think and share thoughts about public figures. It's not a "deep state" plot. Just people talking-people who happened to work at the FBI. Try to be honest for just a second. If you read a report from the Senate Democrats that concluded that Hunter Biden had been meeting with Chinese spies and giving them information that would help the Chinese coordinate campaigns against the American public you'd call him a traitor and call for his head. If there were hundreds of pages of documentation of these cloak-and-dagger meetings and communications, you wouldn't look at it and say there's no evidence and no merit. -- But because you're neck deep in the Trump cult, you're willing to turn off all logic and reason and hand-wave away such egregious actions. And if they ever pin anything real on Hunter you'd be utterly outraged if Joe Biden pardoned him--and doubly so if it appeared that Joe pardoned hunter to prevent him from flipping. There's no question that you would be outraged by any of that. Ask yourself honestly. -- Well, Trumpco has already done all of that, and more, and you're still carrying his water. It's pathetic.

That's not what I say, it's what the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report states conclusively. Collusion happened. We know it happened. Kilimnik was involved with the Russian influence campaign in 2016. He was involved with the hack and leak. He was involved in the Russian influence campaign again in 2020. And Manafort was secretly feeding him polling and strategy. Your defense of this activity is really pathetic. Apparently you'd say that, in spite of all the evidence, Al Capone wasn't involved in organized crime, otherwise he would have been charged. Instead the government was out to get him and only charged him with Trumped up tax crimes! No fair! The fact is that sometimes people ARE good at covering their tracks. And if you can't conclusively prove in court that someone was engaged in the primary criminal enterprise, you hang them on their financial crimes instead. Either way is a win for society.

You are just lying again. 1. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report was conclusive: "The Committee found that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer." If you, random internet guy, want to disagree, take it up with the CIA, FBI and NSA. 2. The information WAS NOT publicly available. "On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik." -- "Manafort shared sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy with Kilimnik" ^^Note that this is exactly the information the Russian election interference effort would need to coordinate with Trump campaign activities and target the right Americans with the right messages for maximal effect. You say it's not big deal, but Manafort, Gates and Kilimnik went to extraordinary lengths to hide and cover their communications of what you call "publicly available" information. ? And now I see you've shifted tactics. You say, "Well, even if the Trump campaign did collude with Russian intelligence operatives who were trying to tilt the election for Trump, that's not the reason Trump won." Nice try.

Dude, come on. Why would one need to "search for quite a while" for a very common phrase? I've got so much news for you. When someone is described as the "golden child" they aren't actually gold colored. When someone is described as a "red-headed step child," it doesn't mean they have red hair or that they have a step-parent. When someone is described as a "poster child" for characteristic X, it doesn't mean that they are literally a child or that they literally appear on a poster. ^^Oh, my goodness, look at all that "liberal reality warping"! Liberal bastards, always using common phrases you don't understand for whatever reason. ?

Serious question, is English your first language? The frequency with which you miss, misuse and misunderstand common idioms seems like a lot of ESL folks I know. There's no shame in ESL, but maybe don't make language a point of debate if that's the case--well, in either case, really. OTHER IDIOMS AND PHRASES WITH FAIR-HAIRED BOY fair-haired boy A favorite, a person who is given special treatment. For example, Today the attorney general is the governor's fair-haired boy. This term alludes to the preference of blond (“fair”) hair over dark hair. [Late 1800s]

You can dip, dodge and deflect all you want, still won't change that Manafort was passing sensitive political intelligence to a spy, who passed it to the Kremlin, which was targeting US citizens for election interference.

Yeah, sure Manafort was keeping up this ongoing series of super secret meetings and hidden and encrypted email and text communication to talk with his Russian intelligence buddy about casual things that weren't at all secret.?

Are you really this farking oblivious? Literally everyone who had investigated this--including the Republican Senate--have started this conclusively. He's been indicted but, of course, Russia will never let us prosecute one if their spies. Seriously, read the goddamn report and stop spouting FOX news nonsense.

Nobody was investigated for "collusion." However, the Trump campaign absolutely did collude with Russian intelligence. That Mueller couldn't connect the final dots to prove it was a criminal conspiracy doesn't mean that it wasn't. It VERY likely was. But in either case it absolutely, with total certainly, merited investigation. There was no hoax. And you're simply delusional if you think it in any way appropriate for a campaign chair to be arranging secret meetings to pass sensitive political intelligence to foreign operatives. Not to mention what Stone was up to with the hack and leak. And Kilimnik is a known Russian intelligence operative who delivered what he got from Manafort directly to the Kremlin. <-- Again, not a theory, but on record at this point. And the Senate Intelligence committee report was REPUBLICAN-led. The Democrats didn't do it. They were in the minority at the time. You are either invitation or lying about this, and it's anybody's guess.

Sessions recused himself because an investigation would be required and he couldn't, in good conscience, investigate himself. Which allowed Rosenstein to make the call on special prosecutor. That's right, neither of those Trump appointees thought it was a meritless investigation which should be shut down. They both agreed that it must continue. And Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel to continue it. That's nonsense. Comey (a Republican) did oversee an early investigation, but there was nothing illegal about it. It was entirely necessary. Again, the even the Durham report agreed that investigation was appropriate. The head of the FBI can't watch a Presidential candidate's campaign deeply enmeshed with hostile foreign intelligence and not investigate. That would be absurd. It's literally part of the job. And you should just take "non crimes" out of your vocabulary. Sounds more absurd every time you use it. Do you understand that the party nominees, like Trump, receive top secret intelligence briefings? And then when his campaign staff--his campaign manager!--have ongoing secret meetings with Russian intelligence operatives underlayers of tradecraft, there's nothing to see here? No reason to investigate that? GTFO!

No, she's was not necessarily breaking the law. You're allowed to deliver for family--the rules are laid on page 1 of this thread. By quick count, even in a small family, a person might easily be able to legally drop off 15 ballots. Kids, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles in-laws, etc. are all eligible for family delivery. A comically stereotypical Catholic or Mormon person could easily drop of 30+ ballots legally. Though, obviously, smaller household sizes are much more likely. Again, there was one drop box for the entire county. The idea that every voter in a family will climb into their own individual cars and caravan down to the drop box is preposterous. Of course families are sending a delegate. Of course one spouse says to another, "I'm having lunch downtown today, I'll drop off our ballots on my way." Or, "Hey, mom, I'm dropping off my ballot today, do you want me to take yours?" And on and on. It's not just "technically legal" it's totally normal behavior. That woman's spouse may have been sitting in the passenger seat, for goodness sake. People who want to assume or imagine that this is video evidence of a crime--and that this woman dropping off two ballots is probable cause to expect large-scale fraud--are just remarkably small minded.