Mark Levin; 'This indictment is crap!'

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Well-known member
Contributor
'This indictment is crap!'

MARK LEVIN: This indictment, Mr. Barr, is crap! And the reason they didn't bring insurrection, and seditious conspiracy is because there was no insurrection and seditious conspiracy. … I want to say something to Mike Pence, who has turned out to be quite the weasel. Mike Pence fought like hell, he didn't want to testify in front of this grand jury, he didn't want to give his notes to this grand jury, now we know why, he's scribbling them down in the meeting. Well, he had to give them up, then he gives them up and he comes out, he's like all of a sudden a drama queen! 'I said no!' because his notes were in there, he's flipped completely, 'and I stopped a constitutional crisis.' You did?

They didn't find – and I told you this months ago – not a syllable of evidence that Donald Trump was involved in overthrowing the government in an insurrection or anything else. As a matter of fact, he left office when he was supposed to leave office, that's what he did. They went after him before he was elected, they went after him when he was elected, they went after him in four years of his presidency. They're going after him now, and this is a disgrace to the whole country.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-levin-goes-off-bill-barr-weasel-mike-pence-indictment-crap
 
Wait, are you telling me that Mark Levin, Fox news suck up and fucking moron, says the indictment is no good. I guess we should tear it up then.

:magagrin:
 
Concart said:
Wait, are you telling me that Mark Levin, Fox news suck up and fucking moron, says the indictment is no good. I guess we should tear it up then.
Click to expand...

Mark Levin is a best-selling author of numerous books on political topics. How many have you written and sold? NONE.

Levin enrolled at Temple University Ambler and graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Political Science in 1977 at age 19. You most likely never finished grade school given your arguments.

Levin practiced law in the private sector. You wouldn't know law if it walked up and slapped you on your empty head.

In 1991, Levin joined public interest law firm Landmark Legal Foundation. At Landmark, Levin served as director of legal policy and the foundation's Washington-based Center for Civil Rights before becoming president in 1997.

So yes, I would think that Levin has a lot more intelligence and knowledge on this topic than some whiny, ignorant, lying leftist troll on a tiny political blog.
 
BidenPresident said:
Mark Levin is to the right of Hitler.
Click to expand...

Nordberg said:
And still left of some rightys on this board.
Click to expand...

Concart said:
I like how Levin makes sure he uses legal terms his audience will understand. 'Crap'. Four letters. Almost 70% of Trump voters can spell it.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Three, clueless, uninformed thread trolling low IQ leftist morons in an echo chamber. :laugh:

Notice how they come to the table with no facts, no arguments, just child-like insults.
 
Concart said:
I like how Levin makes sure he uses legal terms his audience will understand. 'Crap'. Four letters. Almost 70% of Trump voters can spell it.
Click to expand...

The guy is a clown, perfect for Fox, talk radio pimp, raking in millions telling the lemmings what they want to hear, can’t say if it is hysterical or sad
 
“I want to say something to Mike Pence, who has turned out to be quite the weasel. Mike Pence fought like hell, he didn’t want to testify in front of this grand jury, he didn’t want to give his notes to this grand jury. Now we know why scribbling them down in the meeting because he had to give them up. Then he gives them up now he comes out, he is like all of a sudden he is a drama queen, I said no. Because his notes are in there, he flipped completely. He says I stopped a constitutional crisis. You did?”

“What are the rules now? What now are the rules for running challenging and disputing elections and who decides? When can a candidate rely on legal advice? We have lawyers who are indicted for giving legal advice, the government disagrees with. Is a president not free to discuss decisions about the elections with his vice president? The vice president is free to do whatever he want, as this vice president did. Is a president freely to dispute election results without being indicted? He knew he lost, but he said he didn’t lose. So what, either way it doesn’t matter.”
 
archives said:
The guy is a clown, perfect for Fox, talk radio pimp, raking in millions telling the lemmings what they want to hear, can’t say if it is hysterical or sad
Click to expand...

Sad. But then they asked for more pig slop from Tucker, so who knows.
 
Times the Results of a Presidential Election Were Contested

1876: A compromise that came at a price

By 1876 – 11 years after the end of the Civil War – all the Confederate states had been readmitted to the Union, and Reconstruction was in full swing. The Republicans were strongest in the pro-Union areas of the North and African-American regions of the South, while Democratic support coalesced around southern whites and northern areas that had been less supportive of the Civil War. That year, Republicans nominated Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes, and Democrats chose New York Governor Samuel Tilden.

1888: Bribing blocks of five

In 1888, Democratic President Grover Cleveland of New York ran for reelection against former Indiana U.S. Senator Benjamin Harrison.

Back then, election ballots in most states were printed, distributed by political parties and cast publicly. Certain voters, known as “floaters,” were known to sell their votes to willing buyers.

Harrison had appointed an Indiana lawyer, William Wade Dudley, as treasurer of the Republican National Committee. Shortly before the election, Dudley sent a letter to Republican local leaders in Indiana with promised funds and instructions for how to divide receptive voters into “blocks of five” to receive bribes in exchange for voting the Republican ticket. The instructions outlined how each Republican activist would be responsible for five of these “floaters.”

1960: Did the Daley machine deliver?

The 1960 election pitted Republican Vice President Richard Nixon against Democratic U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy.

The popular vote was the closest of the 20th century, with Kennedy defeating Nixon by only about 100,000 votes – a less than 0.2 percent difference.

Because of that national spread – and because Kennedy officially defeated Nixon by less than 1 percent in five states (Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico) and less than 2 percent in Texas – many Republicans cried foul. They fixated on two places in particular – southern Texas and Chicago, where a political machine led by Mayor Richard Daley allegedly churned out just enough votes to give Kennedy the state of Illinois. If Nixon had won Texas and Illinois, he would have had an Electoral College majority.

While Republican-leaning newspapers proceeded to investigate and conclude that voter fraud had occurred in both states, Nixon did not contest the results. Following the example of Cleveland in 1892, Nixon ran for president again in 1968 and won.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...ential-elections-contested-results-180961033/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top