Your emphasis does nothing but distract from what you’re trying to hide.

More key points:

1. The project was devised by Melissa Moss, a Democratic consultant and former senior Clinton administration official.

2. Some of the attorney targets already have been hit with bar complaints. One going after Georgia attorney Brad Carver for his role as an alternate elector was dismissed for lack of evidence. Carver, in an email to Axios, reiterated his position that his involvement was legally appropriate.

3. "This is mostly important for the deterrent effect that it can bring so that you can kill the pool of available legal talent going forward," according to a person involved with the effort, who asked to remain anonymous.

4. Advisory board members include former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.); and Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and member of the Federalist Society who was former senior counsel for Ken Starr's Clint0n-era Whitewater investigation and served in George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security.

Your emphasis does nothing but distract from what you’re trying to hide. — NOS4A2

I am not trying to hide anything. Let's look at your key points:

1. As I said, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, as your point 4 supports. The reason why most are Democrats is because most Republicans lack to backbone to stand against Trump and his efforts to overturn the election.

2. Brad Carver's case was dismissed. So? He is one out of over 100 they are targeting. Do you really think that one case being dismissed means that over 100 lawyers did not attempt to overturn the election? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

3. Yes. They have made their intentions clear: deterring lawyers from attempts to overturn future legitimate elections. Again, do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

4. Daschle, a Democrat is a member of the advisory board. Paul Rosenzweig, as I pointed out, is a conservative and member of the Federalist Society. A Democrat and a Republican working together to preserve election integrity. Sounds suspicious! I better hide that.

I never said it was a Democrat vs Republican issue, I’m afraid, so your argument means nothing. I strictly used the phrase “anti-Trump forces”. I was noting the “typical anti-Trumpism” Dershowitz (a Democrat) and other lawyers were facing. It’s no secret the neoconservative wing of the grand ol’ party are NeveverTrump. Besides that, Rosenzweig has voted for Democrats since 2018. Who cares about their party affiliation? More straw men.

“A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits”. This, according to Fooloso, is a bipartisan effort to “preserve election integrity”. No greater amount of hokum has foamed at the corners of someone’s mouth.

Some may find this a worthwhile read ...

Inside the Next Republican Revolution
^{— Michael Hirsh · POLITICO · Sep 19, 2023}

This land is your land, this federal government is your federal government. It’s not just the sole province of people in the metro D.C. area. Within 350 million Americans we can find genuine, intelligent, straightforward politicians to move things forward. — corrected Paul Dans quote

That is rather interesting.

Particularly the equivalence drawn between Bernie and Donald. I'm reminded of the French revolution as much as of the rise of Fascism in the 30's. A system that cannot adapt fast enough has to collapse, and that is what consensus politics is doing.

"Heads must roll" is the new consensus, but also "Not mine". The contradictions are obvious. The turmoil will not lead to what its instigators want though, but to a political system that will address the new imperatives - to Green Fascism. We will face reality eventually, when everything else has been tried and has failed. And by then the global power will be China, because they already have the autocratic system in place, and have already shown themselves capable of radical change of policy.

In the dispute between liberty and the laws of physics, liberty is bound to lose.

This land is your land, this federal government is your federal government. It’s not just the sole province of people in the metro D.C. area. — corrected Paul Dans quote

The argument for more participatory democracy in a nutshell but instead they prefer to vest all power in the President and defund all countervailing powers. The performative contradiction alone makes me giggle.

I never said it was a Democrat vs Republican issue, I’m afraid, so your argument means nothing. — NOS4A2

You accused me of hiding something and identified four key points. The first of your key points was that the project was started by a Democrat.

Dershowitz (a Democrat) — NOS4A2

He was a Democrat. He says he has been excluded. His resentment against the Democrats is evident. This is his membership card to the Party of Trump.

Who cares about their party affiliation? — NOS4A2

Apparently you do, until you don't. But then again you do:

A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights ...
This, according to Fooloso, is a bipartisan effort ... — NOS4A2

In all this pointing to and then denying the importance of party affiliation, you overlook the main issue:

Election integrity. I'll ask you for the third time. Do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

There is nothing wrong with contesting an election. There is something wrong with McCarthyism and seeking to disbar and ostracize people who do contest elections.

What do you think "contesting" means?

Challenging the legality or validity of an election. What do you think it means?

Well I think he certainly did a lot more than "challenge" it - he looked for every opportunity to reverse the results outside of the normal process.

If my company underpaid me I could challenge my paycheck. It's a bit beyond "challenging my paycheck" if I go to the office after work hours and ask the janitor to just let me into the company safe so I can take everything I think the company owes me.

Have you seen or read any quotes from Trump or others using the phrase “overturn the election”? Has he requested, demanded, or pressured anyone to do such a thing? In my searching I’ve found nothing, so naturally I’m curious how this phrase has dropped into the political lexicon and is now repeated as if it occurred.

Has he requested, demanded, or pressured anyone to do such a thing? — NOS4A2

Yes, quite obviously so. I know you know that

In my searching I’ve found nothing — NOS4A2

There's a Wikipedia page for it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

Yes, quite obviously so. I know you know that

I don’t know that because I haven’t seen it. If it’s that obvious then such a quote should be easy to find.

Yes, I'm well aware that it's within your personal psychological interest to pretend like you have no idea what everyone else is talking about. WHY that's in your personal interest is anyone's guess.

If you want to know why the rest of the world thinks it's obvious he tried to overturn the election, there's an entire Wikipedia article for you to peruse, with sources cited.

He needs Trump to have literally said "I want to overturn the election". He'll be the guy when a mobster sends a chopped off horse's head that says: "It's not a threat. He's taking care of that poor family by sending them fresh meat!"

"It's obvious" is not a good enough answer, I'm afraid. I suspect you repeat the phrase because others do, because of propaganda.

I can take one example from your Wikipedia page and illustrate my point.

"In the days after the election, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, exchanged 29 text messages with Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, urging him to pursue efforts to overturn the election. "

Then when I read from the source texts, she urges no such thing. So where does this idea come from if not from propaganda?

https://archive.ph/7pIGc

Why is it debatable that he tried to overturn the election? What does overturn mean to you?

There's a handful of definitions online, brittanica gives one:

to decide that (a ruling, decision, etc.) is wrong and change it

Is this not literally what he was trying to do? There's not even a negative connotation to this word, some legal rulings SHOULD be overturned.

He wasn't asking those people in Georgia to find 11,000 votes because he wanted the results of the election to stay the same, was he?

Do you have some other definition of overturn? Or do you really think he wasn't trying to have the results changed because they were rigged according to him? Don't play games, be honest.

To reverse, flip, or abolish a decision. Such a thing can only occur once the truth is established, only after an election is contested, perhaps even held again. For some reason or other you say that Trump and his team were doing one and not the other. Why not just say he was contesting the election?

You don't concoct the fake electors scheme to contest the election.

You don't ask to find 11k votes to contest the election.

You do those things to change the election.

And, of course, you would only contest the results to change them anyway. You're not contesting them if you want them to stay the same ffs.

There is nothing wrong with contesting an election. — NOS4A2

Contesting an election and attempting to overturn an election are two different things. As much as you attempt for it to be otherwise this is not a partisan issue.

After asking you three times you still have not said whether you think it is wrong to attempt to overturn an election.

There is something wrong with McCarthyism and seeking to disbar and ostracize people who do contest elections. — NOS4A2

There is a telling connection between Trump and McCarthy - Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn.

Yes you do.

You’re subject to The Big Lie, which according to Goebbels, is “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

Do you think there's any possibility that you've fallen for a big lie?

I’m willing to hear any argument that I have.

No argument, just looking for the general possibility that you might have fallen for a lie. Do you think it's possible at all that Donald Trump lost the election and tried to take it back? Take it back via unacceptable, unethical means, potentially illegally means?

Do you think there's any possibility that you've fallen for a big lie? — flannel jesus

We have to be careful in not jumping at such affirmations too quickly. If someone is opposed to Woke culture, he is already a liar and doesn't live in the real world. Who is the liar and the truth seeker here? Please, we have to let the judges do their job and stay away from the media and journalists more often.

I am susceptible to lies and am fully aware of my biases. All I can do is listen to both sides of the story, any information that is available, and come to my own conclusions.

Yes, I think it is possible Trump lost the election and tried to take it back by potentially illegally means.

Will him being found guilty in any of these ongoing trials increase the likelihood that he's actually, genuinely guilty, decrease the likelihood or leave them the same in your eyes?

No. I actually expect him to be found guilty. I have zero faith in the US legal system. If he is acquitted I will be pleasantly surprised.