After Years of Spreading Lies, Election Deniers Face Consequences

[Port Tack]

I see a lot of them pleading guilty to avoid a trial and the expenses of a trial.

That's the beauty of the Rico charge, if a couple of them plead guilty then the rest will be found guilty for that charge. Minimum 5 years in prison. Do you think Trump will have a private cell with secret service watching him 24-7?

 

[Port Tack]

So there is no actual damage.

Gotcha.

I told you you were to fucking stupid to realize it and then you go and confirm it.

 

[Port Tack]

Nobody tried to overthrow anything, they were challenging the election results which many people have done throughout US history.

Trump was hardly the first to file lawsuits on this issue.

Utter bullshit. Those who did file a suit conceded when they lost that suit. Noone ever lined up a slate of fake electors to steal them from the winner.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Utter bullshit. Those who did file a suit conceded when they lost that suit. Noone ever lined up a slate of fake electors to steal them from the winner.

They weren't trying to steal anything, Biden's electors had already voted, these electors were placed to cast a vote if the courts overturned the election results in favor of Trump.

Each party has their own slate of electors depending on how the popular goes.

Again these are bullshit charges.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Democrats Denying Election Results For 24 Minutes (Video)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686570316833697792

https://rare.us/rare-politics/getting-it-right/the-ole-voter-count-controversy-is-nothing-new/

 

[BartenderElite]

Democrats Denying Election Results For 24 Minutes (Video)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686570316833697792

https://rare.us/rare-politics/getting-it-right/the-ole-voter-count-controversy-is-nothing-new/

Too bad it's not even remotely comparable.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Too bad it's not even remotely comparable.

So, you are an election denier, only selective about it, hum?

 

[BartenderElite]

So, you are an election denier, only selective about it, hum?

No.

 

[Port Tack]

They weren't trying to steal anything, Biden's electors had already voted, these electors were placed to cast a vote if the courts overturned the election results in favor of Trump.

Each party has their own slate of electors depending on how the popular goes.

Again these are bullshit charges.

The MAGA claim that this is all just free speech and Trump “had every legal right to challenge the results of the election” isn't going to fly in a courtroom. Sure he has the right to challenge the results in a court, maybe even in Congress which he did. But he had no right to confiscate voting machines, intimidate election workers, and cajole public officials to violate their oaths of office by throwing out certified election results. Those are all crimes—not mere speech, not legal challenges, and not political acts. The prosecution will present these as well as numerous other instances of criminal acts that have nothing to do with "free speech". The MAGA crowd does not have to listen to the evidence, the jury will have it explained in detail.

 

[Port Tack]

Democrats Denying Election Results For 24 Minutes (Video)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686570316833697792

https://rare.us/rare-politics/getting-it-right/the-ole-voter-count-controversy-is-nothing-new/

I truly find it hard to believe you are this fucking stupid to compare her to Trump. Hillary conceded the election the next day after it was called and she may have denied some of the results after the election, she did not concoct a fucking wild plan to steal it from Trump. She did not call a rally after she lost and convince her supporters to go "fight like hell" to stop the confirmation of the winner. She did not call representatives in states she lost and tell them to "find" enough votes to overturn the results. She did not have her minions go and blatantly lie to these representatives and the public in an effort to overturn the election. Sure, plenty of losers have questioned the results after losing, THAT is what you call free speech, committing criminal acts in an effort to steal the election are not.

One must truly be a devout Trump supporter refusing to believe the facts to compare her actions to those of Trump.

 

[Port Tack]

So, you are an election denier, only selective about it, hum?

She explained her opinion, nothing more. She did not commit any crimes in an effort to steal or overturn the election. Only an ignorant and devout Trumper could so much as insinuate there is anything similar between her and what your fuhrer did. Trump is not being tried for saying or thinking he won the election, he is being tried for actively conducting a conspiracy to steal one that he lost, that is a crime. The same with the documents case, he is not being charged for having some classified material in his possession, he is being charged with refusing to return them and actively conducting a conspiracy to keep them, that is a crime. Something neither Biden nor Pence would have dreamed of doing which is why there is no comparison there either.

The MAGA shithead does not have the intelligence to understand those facts and refuses to accept them. A jury will be told what the facts are with clear evidence proving them.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The MAGA claim that this is all just free speech and Trump “had every legal right to challenge the results of the election” isn't going to fly in a courtroom. Sure he has the right to challenge the results in a court, maybe even in Congress which he did. But he had no right to confiscate voting machines, intimidate election workers, and cajole public officials to violate their oaths of office by throwing out certified election results. Those are all crimes—not mere speech, not legal challenges, and not political acts. The prosecution will present these as well as numerous other instances of criminal acts that have nothing to do with "free speech". The MAGA crowd does not have to listen to the evidence, the jury will have it explained in detail.

Except none of that happened.

He asked for permission to have his people inspect the voting machines and it was granted by the state of Georgia.

He never intimidated election workers.

And the slate of electors were chosen to vote for Trump if the courts found the count in Georgia illegal, both sides have a slate of electors you know, they never actually voted for Trump.

They were on standby.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Except none of that happened.

He asked for permission to have his people inspect the voting machines and it was granted by the state of Georgia.

He never intimidated election workers.

And the slate of electors were chosen to vote for Trump if the courts found the count in Georgia illegal, both sides have a slate of electors you know, they never actually voted for Trump.

They were on standby.

Life is imitating art...