Even if that's so, to ask him specifically to find the right number of votes to make him win... you don't think that smells? Whether he's asking him to find votes for trump or find illegal votes for biden, in either case he's calling a governor and telling him "make me win, do what you need to do to make me win." You don't think there's anything fishy about that at all?

Like maybe if he didn't specify who the votes were for, and didn't specify any quantity of votes, and just said something like "there were a lot of illegal votes in Georgia, I think you guys should put some more effort into identifying those illegal votes and throwing them out", that might make some sense. But to specifically find illegal votes for his opponent, and specifically the number that would make him win... He's asking the governor to make him win. It's mind boggling to me that that's acceptable to anybody.

So I ask again, if Kamala Harris does the same thing this year, you're cool with that? She calls up the governor of somewhere and says "find me the right amount of votes to make me win", you've got no problems with that?

That's because you haven't read the transcript of that call. That's the going rate, and you're in good company, but it's wrong. It's been misconstrued that he is pressuring the governor to magically come up with votes, not that he wants to find the illegal votes he's been speaking about the whole call. — NOS4A2

As I've discussed before, the mere fact that he stated the number of votes he needed is not relevant. What IS relevant is that he was pressuring the state officials to change the result using lies (here's a list of lies he told on the call).

"It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election," he said following his November 2020 defeat, according to a witness who overheard the remark. "You still have to fight like hell." (as noted in Smith's filing).

“The details don’t matter,” Trump said, when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn’t be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.

Former president Donald Trump’s years-long effort to restrict mail balloting and early voting has skidded into reverse in North Carolina, with the Republican presidential nominee demanding the kind of easier voting access that he labeled fraudulent when Democrats pushed similar measures during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/21/trump-voting-north-carolina-helene/

Election fraud! :lol:

"It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election," he said following his November 2020 defeat, according to a witness who overheard the remark. "You still have to fight like hell." (as noted in Smith's filing). — Relativist

Oh, there's that infamous phrase from the Jan 6 speech, "fight like hell". @NOS4A2 likes to interpret that phrase as being in the context of campaigning for an election, "a hard fought campaign". Now we see the intended context very clearly, to fight after the election, to subvert the legal outcome. Of course, that was already obvious to anyone but NOS, because the Jan 6 statement was nearly two months after the election.

That’s false. He explicitly asked them to investigate illegal voting. You keep repeating the one phrase his enemies do, but leave out the rest of the call. The elector scheme wasn’t to “overturn the election”, but to force a recount. You have problems with recounts? You don’t like to investigate illegal voting? Fine, but lying about it turns people away from your cause. One of these days your comrades are going to say “I’m tired of being lied to”.

Oh, there's that infamous phrase from the Jan 6 speech, "fight like hell". @NOS4A2 likes to interpret that phrase as being in the context of campaigning for an election, "a hard fought campaign". Now we see the intended context very clearly, to fight after the election, to subvert the legal outcome. Of course, that was already obvious to anyone but NOS, because the Jan 6 statement was nearly two months after the election.

You guys tried to play it off as calling for violence. Once proven a stupid idea you pivot to something equally as ridiculous.

That’s false. He explicitly asked them to investigate illegal voting. You keep repeating the one phrase his enemies do, but leave out the rest of the call. The elector scheme wasn’t to “overturn the election”, but to force a recount. You have problems with recounts? You don’t like to investigate illegal voting? Fine, but lying about it turns people away from your cause. One of these days your comrades are going to say “I’m tired of being lied to”. — NOS4A2

Be specific: what exactly did I say that was false?

I have not repeated the "one phrase". In fact, I a knowledged the irrelevance of that one phrase.

You claim Trump "asked them to investigate illegal voting". Provide a quote of Trump's where he explicitly asks for this.

It is an unequivocal fact that Trump was asserting he won the state, and was repeating allegations that had been investigated and debunked directly to him. This includes the allegations against Dominion and the "ballots pulled from under the table" at State Farm Arena.

Shouldn't one's vote depend on which comedian gives you your best money's worth?

Yesterday there was much joy on Fox as Trump flipped burgers and drained the oil from chips at a Maccas. Today I read there is an outbreak of food poisoning. At Maccas.

That's what happens when you let someone with incontinence prepare your food.

The commentary on the Law subreddit is interesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1g9u07a/heres_what_was_in_the_evidence_document_trump/

I'm not sure how much of that community is actual legal experts (it would be naive to think they're all legal experts, but I think overly cynical to think there aren't a hell of a lot there), but there seems to be a consensus there that he did try to overturn the election results (rather than just the soft-ball wording of NOS4 that he was merely contesting the results), and that his actions throughout this ordeal were illegal.

there seems to be a consensus there that he did try to overturn the election results (rather than just the soft-ball wording of NOS4 that he was merely contesting the results), and that his actions throughout this ordeal were illegal. — flannel jesus

Raffensberger certainly believed he was being pressured, and even hired a lawyer because he feared Trump would push a wrongful prosecution against him (source).

There are two kinds of judgements that can be considered:

1) the threshold for a criminal prosecution

I'm not sure, but NOS4A2 may be trying to argue that there's reasonable doubt about whether Trump's intent was to pressure Georgia officials. The prosecution will have the burden to prove this. I think they CAN, but that will be decided in a courtroom. I also think this is moot at this point. This will only go to trial if Trump loses the election.

2) the reasoned judgement of an objective voter
I suggest that a voter can, and should, judge this for himself. I don't think NOS4A2 can make a case that it's MORE likely Trump was merely encouraging an investigation rather than actually applying pressure. I'm aware of no exculpatory evidence - and there's an abundance of evidence that Trump had been disabused of the notions that any of the fraud claims were valid. So IMO, the most benign interpretation is that Trump is exceedingly stupid or pathologically incapable of accepting a reality he does not like. No reasonable person should vote for someone who is either exceedingly stupid or incapable of accepting reality - much less if he actually broke the law.

John Kelly reports on Trump's approval of Hitler in some respects. The pooper scoopers who follow his every move will probably not pick that one up.

Another accuser of Trump has come out


the Guardian – 23 Oct 24Donald Trump groped me in what felt like a ‘twisted game’ with Jeffrey... 1
Stacey Williams says the ex-president, whose spokesperson denied the allegations, touched her in an unwanted sexual way in 1993, after Epstein introduced them

Epstein led this model to Trump, and upon meeting her, Trump started groping her and feeling her up.

Now in any other world, a woman says this about a guy running for president and I have some reasonable doubt. Maybe she’s in it for fame, maybe she’s been paid off by the opposite party to lie - things like that are conceivable.

But we’re talking about trump here. Mr grab them by the pussy himself. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

And of course his own words make this weird relationship with Epstein credible too:

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine that year for a story headlined “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery.” “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

There’s no reason to take any future denial from Trump seriously, he’s already told us he’s the kind of guy to do stuff like this.

And let’s not forget Trump has already been found to be a rapist in court. Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal

We know that this is one-sided reporting. But the other side? You want to hear from them? There is no other side - the world is round.

So Trump would like some nazi generals. They did have pretty stylish uniforms. It's not like Trump has any use for unquestioning loyalists who would follow his orders even if it leads to catastrophe, right?

Though honestly I kinda doubt Trump even knows enough about the nazi generals to appreciate their warped sense of military duty. He's probably thinking more on the level of "they did win a lot and winning good".

The sense of desperation is in the air. The long-discredited media machine is working overtime trying to churn out propaganda, but it ends up being circulated within the confines of the moral panic, bringing few if any converts to their hysteria. The result is that the foam at their mouths get frothier while no one else really cares until they do something stupid, like assassinate a candidate. Their window of opportunity for that option is getting slim, but never doubt the confidence of someone trapped in a moral panic.

It could all work out in everyone’s favor, though, because the media only discredits itself further. No matter the results of this election a bright side to all of this might be their total collapse as an institution.

The result is that the foam at their mouths get frothier while no one else really cares until they do something stupid, like assassinate a candidate. — NOS4A2

By they I assume you mean Soros funded radical left transgender cannibals.

According to Kelly, Trump did not believe him when he pointed out that some of Hitler's generals tried to kill him. I am sure you are right about the image of success.

Trump's real problem is that the Constitution limits the role of the military in our society.

Elite Hollywood pedophiles, to be precise.

Elite Hollywood pedophiles, to be precise. — NOS4A2

This caught my attention. Please educate me on this - which Hollywood elites are pedophiles, and how do you know they are?

This will be an opportunity for you to explain how you learn what is going on in the world (at least this one allegation), given the fact that you distrust the mainstream media.

It was a joke.

The 'moral panic' language can be found on Fox, Washington Times, Breitbart, and Red State.

The sources for the 1/6 action at the Capitol being engineered by the deep state is less available. Like his master, Nos for a two cannot be fact checked.

That’s a lie. Remember when you repeated the “very fine people” hoax? You’re just projecting, and angry, a bad combo.

The Iranians apparently want Kamala to win. :lol:

Election interference, anyone?

Lol, what a shit show. :rofl:

Accused Iranian hackers successfully peddle stolen Trump emails

Another big news organization in chaos from big money pulling for Trump:

Trump goes on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

The funny thing about this is that anyone ever believed the Washington Post's lies about itself. It was a business, is a business, and will continue to be a business, nothing more. Bezos is just saying out loud (through his actions) what anyone with any sense should have known all along. The hysteria is comical and delusional.

Despite the fact that most of what he's saying is utter bullshit, I can see him coming across as sincere and likeable. If I just remove the words and their meanings, I could like the guy too. Better than Kamala whose personality problem is that she has none. Trump just seems human, unpolitical, and like Joe, many Americans are laughably helpless at unravelling his B.S. and that then is enough. It's looking worse for Kamala every day, but surely the establishment has a few tricks left up its sleeve?

Of course it is a business. They serve their market just as the Washington Times serves theirs. If it was a matter of only the marketplace, the paper would not suffer for declining to endorse. If we are to believe the narrative, Bezos does not want to be on the enemy list if Trump wins. That too, can be a financial decision but a different calculation than maximizing profit.

True.