ADVERTISEMENT

OT: 5 Army Soldiers Killed, 1 CIA ?? During Frankfurt Raid?

Do you really not get how you can win less counties than Obama, and yet get more total votes? The number of counties won doesn’t have a lot to do with the total vote count.

It just puts a focus on the huge counties in the big city areas where the fraud is purported to have occurred.
 
Do you really not get how you can win less counties than Obama, and yet get more total votes? The number of counties won doesn’t have a lot to do with the total vote count.
Oh, so when you said "that isn't fishy at all", what you really meant to say was just that it is mathematically possible. I was genuinely worried there for a minute, I thought there was some new shit on numbers that was I unaware of. I was like, "am I retarded all of a sudden"?

So sure, it is mathematically possible that Biden won considerably less counties, but received considerably more votes, but if you don't think that's "fishy at all", then you're the retarded one who doesn't know how numbers work.
 
OK it’s pretty simple. tell your boy Rudy to present this “statistical evidence” in court. You know what a court is right? That place where if you falsify evidence you end up in jail. Because so far, despite screaming “fraud! Fraud!” at his press conferences, when in court rudy (and every other Trump lawyer) has said they are not claiming fraud.

You are being taken for a ride man.
I posted some evidence, some statistical numbers that defy science. Care to comment on that? Can you rationally explain away any of that?
Do you really not get how you can win less counties than Obama, and yet get more total votes? The number of counties won doesn’t have a lot to do with the total vote count.
So we are to believe that Biden(legally) garnered more votes all while losing 37% more counties than Obama? Possible? Yes. But thats incredibly unlikely, and only happened in states where he needed it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
I posted some evidence, some statistical numbers that defy science. Care to comment on that? Can you rationally explain away any of that?

So we are to believe that Biden(legally) garnered more votes in 37% less counties than Obama? Possible? Yes. But thats incredibly unlikely, and only happened in states where he needed it.

You did not post any evidence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I don’t think you understand what evidence is. Hey man, there is one thing we can agree on. Joe Biden is your new president.
 
You did not post any evidence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I don’t think you understand what evidence is. Hey man, there is one thing we can agree on. Joe Biden is your new president.
You are avoiding addressing the anomalies in the numbers. All you are doing is pointing to the outcome. I don’t have the answers, I don’t know how the vote count was Manipulated for sure. I do know the possibilities and they are valid concerns. What I do know is that statistics are way off and that needs explaining before people will accept the current count. You tell me how Biden outperformened Obama in select areas ONLY, and those areas happened to be battleground states he was losing badly at until they stopped counting ballots just after midnight on election night. Was Biden a relentless campaigner who outworked Obama? Was the enthusiasm he garnered in those select cities so much more than anything Obama could muster in those urban areas? Does that make more sense, or should we really look at the mail in ballots that were mailed out en masse and counted by democrats without any direct oversight? Does the vote drops coming in large 600 thousand vote dumps 94% for Biden around 3am need to be better explained. Dominion voting machines can be manipulated, it has already happened elsewhere. One firmware update pushed immediately following any manipulation hides any evidence. What you have left is statistical analysis looking at the the vote counts, comparing them to previous elections and the probabilities of the results given. There lies the issue. The numbers don’t add up when put under the scrutiny of scientific probabilities. Liberals love science, right?
 
You are avoiding addressing the anomalies in the numbers. All you are doing is pointing to the outcome. I don’t have the answers, I don’t know how the vote count was Manipulated for sure. I do know the possibilities and they are valid concerns. What I do know is that statistics are way off and that needs explaining before people will accept the current count. You tell me how Biden outperformened Obama in select areas ONLY, and those areas happened to be battleground states he was losing badly at until they stopped counting ballots just after midnight on election night. Was Biden a relentless campaigner who outworked Obama? Was the enthusiasm he garnered in those select cities so much more than anything Obama could muster in those urban areas? Does that make more sense, or should we really look at the mail in ballots that were mailed out en masse and counted by democrats without any direct oversight? Does the vote drops coming in large 600 thousand vote dumps 94% for Biden around 3am need to be better explained. Dominion voting machines can be manipulated, it has already happened elsewhere. One firmware update pushed immediately following any manipulation hides any evidence. What you have left is statistical analysis looking at the the vote counts, comparing them to previous elections and the probabilities of the results given. There lies the issue. The numbers don’t add up when put under the scrutiny of scientific probabilities. Liberals love science, right?
They're crazy election deniers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Interesting polling. The tide is shifting on the reliability of the outcome. Rasmussen has been the most reliable polling org for almost 12 years running. 30% of democrats now think fraud a real possibility against Trump
Click me
tenor.gif


So my question is, what do you think will happen if the result does get overturned?

I think it will be bad, real bad. But I'm ready for it. I bought 3 tractor trailers full of TP, so I'm good.
 
tenor.gif


So my question is, what do you think will happen if the result does get overturned?

I think it will be bad, real bad. But I'm ready for it. I bought 3 tractor trailers full of TP, so I'm good.
Doesn’t look good either way, lots of civil unrest. My 401k almost doubled under Trump, I may soon unload it into gold and cash just to preserve my incredible gains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.

First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.

Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.

He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.

Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the electoral college after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.

Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.


Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.
Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.
Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.
The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:
1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers
2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio
3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions
4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures
5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’
6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing
7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes
8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law
9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.

First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.

Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.

He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.

Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the electoral college after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.

Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.


Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.
Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.
Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.
The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:
1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers
2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio
3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions
4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures
5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’
6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing
7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes
8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law
9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.


You state all of this as if it's fact, yet the Trump campaign has yet to be able to present any actual proof of it's accusations in court. They are being laughed out of court by judges that Trump and other republicans appointed.
 
I posted some evidence, some statistical numbers that defy science. Care to comment on that? Can you rationally explain away any of that?

So we are to believe that Biden(legally) garnered more votes all while losing 37% more counties than Obama? Possible? Yes. But thats incredibly unlikely, and only happened in states where he needed it.
It’s actually very easily possible, and the obvious reason is because the anti-Trump vote was a strong driver of turnout, along with making l-in voting which made it easier for casually anti-Trump voters to vote. Trump also didn’t only gain votes in states where he needed it. That’s a myth.

I’m also wondering why you didn’t credit The Spectator for that post:https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/
 
Last edited:
tenor.gif


So my question is, what do you think will happen if the result does get overturned?

I think it will be bad, real bad. But I'm ready for it. I bought 3 tractor trailers full of TP, so I'm good.

So who are we adding to the deep state this week?

Brian Kemp. Deep state.
GA Sec of State. Deep state.
Chris Krebs. Deep state.
 
Flynn is a traitor and a liar, not surprised that you would celebrate him.

I do not respect your comment at all. You are extremely wrong about Flynn and you just sound like a diehard dem that can never give a real comment. You are just a cheerleader for the disgusting mess that is the democrats. More power to you if thats the bed you want to lie in. Its hard to take you serious after this comment.
 
I do not respect your comment at all. You are extremely wrong about Flynn and you just sound dem that can never give a real comment. You are just a cheerleader for the disgusting mess that is the democrats. More power to you if thats the bed you want to lie in. Its hard to take you serious after this comment.

I am still trying to understand the mental gymnastics required for Donald Trump to fire Flynn for lying to the VP. Flynn admitted and plead guilty for perjury, and was sentenced to prison. Then Trump says the same guy he fired for lying is a patriot and pardons them.

Yet not once has Trump said that he was wrong or flynn didn't lie to the VP.
 
I do not respect your comment at all. You are extremely wrong about Flynn and you just sound like a diehard dem that can never give a real comment. You are just a cheerleader for the disgusting mess that is the democrats. More power to you if thats the bed you want to lie in. Its hard to take you serious after this comment.

That is fine, because I have no respect for you at all. You are a joke. A rube. A laughing stock. You will believe whatever Trump tells you to believe, not matter how ridiculous it is. And anyone who doesn't agree with Trump you label them as deep state. You have convinced yourself that a shady reality TV show host and real estate grifter is the only honest man in America.
 
That is fine, because I have no respect for you at all. You are a joke. A rube. A laughing stock. You will believe whatever Trump tells you to believe, not matter how ridiculous it is. And anyone who doesn't agree with Trump you label them as deep state. You have convinced yourself that a shady reality TV show host and real estate grifter is the only honest man in America.
I have presented you with a lot of statistical anomalies and you have chosen to avoid addressing them directly because you cannot intelligently do so without being laughed at. Whoever posted the anti trump sentiment knows that’s not a valid retort, so the anti Trump voter turnout only happened in disproportionate numbers in the exact states and counties Biden needed in Order to win?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
I have presented you with a lot of statistical anomalies and you have chosen to avoid addressing them directly because you cannot intelligently do so without being laughed at. Whoever posted the anti trump sentiment knows that’s not a valid retort, so the anti Trump voter turnout only happened in disproportionate numbers in the exact states and counties Biden needed in Order to win?

I am not a judge. If there is a real EVIDENCE of voting anomalies, then present them in court. If you can't present it in court, then it isn't real. Pretty simple really.

The only ones being laughed at right now are you and your ilk who are desperately clinging to conspiracy theories because you can't accept that your demigod trump lost. Everyone is laughing at you because you cant see that this whole Election Defense is just another way for Trump (the same guy who employed his whole family as part of his campaign) to keep milking rubes like you to line his pockets.

Everyone is laughing at you.

image


Obama-Laugh.jpg


5dd73d420f0b0.image.jpg



UIOAR5D6YMQN5TLSCUWOBJTQ4U.jpg
 
Go listen to the Tracey Beanz interview with General Flynn’s brother on the 27th. 1:09:40 mark in the podcast app
That is some in-way-too-deep stuff right there. Some of you guys need to take a few steps back from Trump-world and realize how crazy the internet is making you. Why you guys are so attached to this loser is beyond me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: other1 and dpic73
I am still trying to understand the mental gymnastics required for Donald Trump to fire Flynn for lying to the VP. Flynn admitted and plead guilty for perjury, and was sentenced to prison. Then Trump says the same guy he fired for lying is a patriot and pardons them.

Yet not once has Trump said that he was wrong or flynn didn't lie to the VP.
Setting aside Trump's personal melodramas with his (former) cabinet, Flynn's pardon was a good thing: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/michael-flynn-pardon-justified/
"You don’t have to be a fan of how Trump has wielded his pardon power (often recklessly and on behalf of friends and supporters) or believe that Flynn was a good choice for national-security adviser or has conducted himself prudently and honorably the last several years (he hasn’t) to acknowledge that this is so.

Flynn should never have been the subject of an FBI investigation; the FBI’s behavior in interviewing Flynn was reprehensible; and the pardon restores the appropriate balance of prosecutorial power, which was put askew by the misconduct of federal district-court judge Emmet Sullivan.

It is due only to Judge Sullivan’s unhinged outbursts that Flynn was not convicted and sentenced on December 18, 2018. That is when Flynn, wanting at the time to put a sorry chapter behind him, appeared before Sullivan for what was anticipated to be sentencing.

In late 2017, Flynn had pled guilty before a different judge to one count of making false statements to the government. These involved three matters: (a) lying to the FBI about the scope of his discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, during the Trump transition, regarding sanctions President Obama imposed over Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 election; (b) lying to the FBI about his transition discussions with Kislyak and other foreign leaders, in which he urged opposition to a U.N. resolution, supported by Obama behind the scenes, to condemn Israeli settlement activity; and (c) lying in Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) documents filed with the Justice Department, regarding the government of Turkey’s involvement in a project on which Flynn’s private intelligence firm had worked.

None of this was particularly serious as a criminal matter. At the time of his conversations with Kislyak, Flynn was acting as a transition official designated to be the incoming president’s top security aide, and it was appropriate for him to engage in such discussions. Flynn did nothing to undermine the Obama sanctions, and his exchanges regarding the (abominable) Israel resolution had no effect. The Flynn firm’s involvement with agents of the Erdogan regime is troubling, but it is rare for the Justice Department to address FARA violations by criminal prosecution. In light of the other side of the ledger, namely Flynn’s history as a decorated combat commander who had served the United States with honor for over 30 years, this was an easy case: As a first offender convicted of a process crime in which the underlying basis for the investigation — suspicion of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia — was baseless, Flynn should have been sentenced to no jail time.

Sullivan inherited the case after the first judge recused himself. To his credit, he did not merely rely on the transcript of Flynn’s initial guilty plea. Because Flynn’s defense and defenders were publicly suggesting that he was innocent and had been coerced into pleading guilty, Sullivan conducted a second guilty-plea colloquy. Under oath, Flynn conceded that he had willfully made false statements, that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, that he had not been coerced into the plea, that he had not been entrapped by the FBI, and that he had no complaints about the representation provided by his lawyers. Furthermore, he declined Sullivan’s repeated offers to allow him to withdraw his plea and fight the case.

But then Sullivan went rogue. Despite the relatively minor nature of Flynn’s offense, the judge admonished Flynn that he had “undermine[d] everything” the American flag “stands for,” and that “arguably, you sold your country out.” For good measure, Sullivan added, “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense,” and asked whether prosecutors had considered whether Flynn “could have been charged with treason” — a slander for which Sullivan later apologized. This bizarre performance induced Flynn to withdraw his request to be sentenced promptly. Seeing what he was up against, Flynn retained combative new counsel (Sidney Powell, now of “Unleash the Kraken” fame) and fought the charge, maintaining his innocence despite having pled guilty twice, in extensive detail.

Attorney General Bill Barr directed a review of Flynn’s case as part of the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation of the politicized origins of the Trump-Russia probe. That review, conducted by the U.S. attorney for St. Louis, an experienced prosecutor and former FBI agent, uncovered that there was scant basis for investigating Flynn — who was deeply unpopular among Obama officials. Obama fired him from his job as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and then Flynn joined the Trump campaign and publicly bashed Obama foreign and counterterrorism policy.

There was no evidence that Flynn was a clandestine foreign agent, nor that he had committed penal offenses — and thus no reasonable predicate for either a counterintelligence or a criminal investigation. Yet the FBI scrutinized Flynn on the assumption that he was a Kremlin mole. After Trump won the 2016 election, the bureau first concluded that its ludicrous investigation should be closed, but then used the pretext of Flynn’s Kislyak conversations to extend it.

Without seeking permission from the Justice Department or White House counsel, as protocols require, the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, directed agents to interview Flynn at the White House in his first full day as national-security adviser. The FBI’s then-deputy director, Andrew McCabe, softened up Flynn by urging him not to alert the White House or retain counsel. The interviewing agents, including the since-terminated Peter Strzok, schemed not to give the bureau’s standard warnings about the nature of the interview and the fact that false statement could result in prosecution. Though the interviewing agents had recordings of Flynn’s Kislyak conversations, they did not share those with Flynn to refresh his recollection; their clear purpose was to induce inaccurate statements that could be used as a basis for Flynn’s firing and/or prosecution.


Flynn, of course, was fired for giving Vice President Pence an inaccurate account of his conversations with Kislyak (it’s hard to know in retrospect how much of this was a genuine misunderstanding and how much calculated dishonesty on Flynn’s part). But even the Comey FBI did not press for Flynn’s prosecution because the agents did not believe he lied. Months later, Mueller’s team of aggressive prosecutors, many of them activist Democrats and former Obama DOJ officials, turned up the pressure on Flynn to plead guilty — and the recently disclosed paper record shows that this included signaling to Flynn that his son (who worked for the Flynn intelligence firm) could be prosecuted for FARA violations.


Taking all these factors into account, Barr decided to dismiss the case. The Justice Department reasoned that because there was no basis to investigate Flynn, his statements to the agents were not “material,” an essential proof element of a false-statements charge. The Justice Department further believed that Flynn would be acquitted if the case went to trial. These conclusions are not air-tight, but they are reasonable. More significantly, they are conclusions DOJ is entitled to make, and makes every day, because decisions about whether to prosecute, including whether to see a prosecution through to its conclusion, are exclusively for the executive in our system.

Judge Sullivan’s intrusion on prosecutorial discretion has been outrageous. He has exploited a flaw in criminal procedural law that requires “leave of the court” to dismiss a case — a provision that is intended to protect defendants from abuse — in order to continue subjecting the defendant to a prosecution that the only legitimate prosecuting authority wants to cease. Sullivan even invited a Trump-bashing former federal judge to theorize how the court might prosecute Flynn if the Justice Department won’t. And Sullivan has willfully declined to rule on the dismissal motion, calculating that if Trump lost the election, he would have to pardon Flynn or risk that Sullivan’s dilatory strategy would give a Biden Justice Department the opportunity to revive the prosecution.

The president’s pardon of Flynn restores the executive branch’s prosecutorial discretion and ends a case that should never have started. There are, however, no heroes in this dismaying saga.
 
Setting aside Trump's personal melodramas with his (former) cabinet, Flynn's pardon was a good thing: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/michael-flynn-pardon-justified/
"You don’t have to be a fan of how Trump has wielded his pardon power (often recklessly and on behalf of friends and supporters) or believe that Flynn was a good choice for national-security adviser or has conducted himself prudently and honorably the last several years (he hasn’t) to acknowledge that this is so.

Flynn should never have been the subject of an FBI investigation; the FBI’s behavior in interviewing Flynn was reprehensible; and the pardon restores the appropriate balance of prosecutorial power, which was put askew by the misconduct of federal district-court judge Emmet Sullivan.

It is due only to Judge Sullivan’s unhinged outbursts that Flynn was not convicted and sentenced on December 18, 2018. That is when Flynn, wanting at the time to put a sorry chapter behind him, appeared before Sullivan for what was anticipated to be sentencing.

In late 2017, Flynn had pled guilty before a different judge to one count of making false statements to the government. These involved three matters: (a) lying to the FBI about the scope of his discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, during the Trump transition, regarding sanctions President Obama imposed over Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 election; (b) lying to the FBI about his transition discussions with Kislyak and other foreign leaders, in which he urged opposition to a U.N. resolution, supported by Obama behind the scenes, to condemn Israeli settlement activity; and (c) lying in Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) documents filed with the Justice Department, regarding the government of Turkey’s involvement in a project on which Flynn’s private intelligence firm had worked.

None of this was particularly serious as a criminal matter. At the time of his conversations with Kislyak, Flynn was acting as a transition official designated to be the incoming president’s top security aide, and it was appropriate for him to engage in such discussions. Flynn did nothing to undermine the Obama sanctions, and his exchanges regarding the (abominable) Israel resolution had no effect. The Flynn firm’s involvement with agents of the Erdogan regime is troubling, but it is rare for the Justice Department to address FARA violations by criminal prosecution. In light of the other side of the ledger, namely Flynn’s history as a decorated combat commander who had served the United States with honor for over 30 years, this was an easy case: As a first offender convicted of a process crime in which the underlying basis for the investigation — suspicion of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia — was baseless, Flynn should have been sentenced to no jail time.

Sullivan inherited the case after the first judge recused himself. To his credit, he did not merely rely on the transcript of Flynn’s initial guilty plea. Because Flynn’s defense and defenders were publicly suggesting that he was innocent and had been coerced into pleading guilty, Sullivan conducted a second guilty-plea colloquy. Under oath, Flynn conceded that he had willfully made false statements, that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, that he had not been coerced into the plea, that he had not been entrapped by the FBI, and that he had no complaints about the representation provided by his lawyers. Furthermore, he declined Sullivan’s repeated offers to allow him to withdraw his plea and fight the case.

But then Sullivan went rogue. Despite the relatively minor nature of Flynn’s offense, the judge admonished Flynn that he had “undermine[d] everything” the American flag “stands for,” and that “arguably, you sold your country out.” For good measure, Sullivan added, “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense,” and asked whether prosecutors had considered whether Flynn “could have been charged with treason” — a slander for which Sullivan later apologized. This bizarre performance induced Flynn to withdraw his request to be sentenced promptly. Seeing what he was up against, Flynn retained combative new counsel (Sidney Powell, now of “Unleash the Kraken” fame) and fought the charge, maintaining his innocence despite having pled guilty twice, in extensive detail.

Attorney General Bill Barr directed a review of Flynn’s case as part of the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation of the politicized origins of the Trump-Russia probe. That review, conducted by the U.S. attorney for St. Louis, an experienced prosecutor and former FBI agent, uncovered that there was scant basis for investigating Flynn — who was deeply unpopular among Obama officials. Obama fired him from his job as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and then Flynn joined the Trump campaign and publicly bashed Obama foreign and counterterrorism policy.

There was no evidence that Flynn was a clandestine foreign agent, nor that he had committed penal offenses — and thus no reasonable predicate for either a counterintelligence or a criminal investigation. Yet the FBI scrutinized Flynn on the assumption that he was a Kremlin mole. After Trump won the 2016 election, the bureau first concluded that its ludicrous investigation should be closed, but then used the pretext of Flynn’s Kislyak conversations to extend it.

Without seeking permission from the Justice Department or White House counsel, as protocols require, the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, directed agents to interview Flynn at the White House in his first full day as national-security adviser. The FBI’s then-deputy director, Andrew McCabe, softened up Flynn by urging him not to alert the White House or retain counsel. The interviewing agents, including the since-terminated Peter Strzok, schemed not to give the bureau’s standard warnings about the nature of the interview and the fact that false statement could result in prosecution. Though the interviewing agents had recordings of Flynn’s Kislyak conversations, they did not share those with Flynn to refresh his recollection; their clear purpose was to induce inaccurate statements that could be used as a basis for Flynn’s firing and/or prosecution.


Flynn, of course, was fired for giving Vice President Pence an inaccurate account of his conversations with Kislyak (it’s hard to know in retrospect how much of this was a genuine misunderstanding and how much calculated dishonesty on Flynn’s part). But even the Comey FBI did not press for Flynn’s prosecution because the agents did not believe he lied. Months later, Mueller’s team of aggressive prosecutors, many of them activist Democrats and former Obama DOJ officials, turned up the pressure on Flynn to plead guilty — and the recently disclosed paper record shows that this included signaling to Flynn that his son (who worked for the Flynn intelligence firm) could be prosecuted for FARA violations.


Taking all these factors into account, Barr decided to dismiss the case. The Justice Department reasoned that because there was no basis to investigate Flynn, his statements to the agents were not “material,” an essential proof element of a false-statements charge. The Justice Department further believed that Flynn would be acquitted if the case went to trial. These conclusions are not air-tight, but they are reasonable. More significantly, they are conclusions DOJ is entitled to make, and makes every day, because decisions about whether to prosecute, including whether to see a prosecution through to its conclusion, are exclusively for the executive in our system.

Judge Sullivan’s intrusion on prosecutorial discretion has been outrageous. He has exploited a flaw in criminal procedural law that requires “leave of the court” to dismiss a case — a provision that is intended to protect defendants from abuse — in order to continue subjecting the defendant to a prosecution that the only legitimate prosecuting authority wants to cease. Sullivan even invited a Trump-bashing former federal judge to theorize how the court might prosecute Flynn if the Justice Department won’t. And Sullivan has willfully declined to rule on the dismissal motion, calculating that if Trump lost the election, he would have to pardon Flynn or risk that Sullivan’s dilatory strategy would give a Biden Justice Department the opportunity to revive the prosecution.

The president’s pardon of Flynn restores the executive branch’s prosecutorial discretion and ends a case that should never have started. There are, however, no heroes in this dismaying saga.


I don't have a big issue with Flynn, but I do find it laughable that Trump is lauding him as some hero after he fired him for being a liar. Trump is such a joke, and I will never understand why some have convinced themselves that he is some kind of actor against the "Deep State".
 
That is fine, because I have no respect for you at all. You are a joke. A rube. A laughing stock. You will believe whatever Trump tells you to believe, not matter how ridiculous it is. And anyone who doesn't agree with Trump you label them as deep state. You have convinced yourself that a shady reality TV show host and real estate grifter is the only honest man in America.
Man you really "hate" Trump, I disliked a lot of Clinton, Bush, and Obama's political views
and takes but I didn't "hate" those folks.
 
I don't have a big issue with Flynn, but I do find it laughable that Trump is lauding him as some hero after he fired him for being a liar. Trump is such a joke, and I will never understand why some have convinced themselves that he is some kind of actor against the "Deep State".
I actually don't like Flynn very much, but part of the point of that was that his lying was basically not a big deal, even if it was worth firing him over because of the position in put the VP in. Trump has had a similarly confusing relationship with many of his cabinet members, who he sort of toggles between claiming are all the best people, part of the deep state who are undermining him, or are losers he should've fired long ago. With Flynn, he's a former general who was persecuted by the same people who "persecuted" Trump, so he's a hero and a martyr even though Trump fired him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
Man you really "hate" Trump, I disliked a lot of Clinton, Bush, and Obama's political views
and takes but I didn't "hate" those folks.

Where did I say that I "hate" trump. I called him what he is, a shady reality TV show host and real estate grifter. I am sure you called Obama (and Biden) worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
Man you really "hate" Trump, I disliked a lot of Clinton, Bush, and Obama's political views
and takes but I didn't "hate" those folks.

Dude, he goes out of his way to make himself hate-able. There's never been a politician this egregiously hateful, demented and devoid of facts in American history. He literally goes out of his way to intentionally divide us and make us hate each other. The Dem politicians you named didn't give you much reason to hate them but you disliked them simply because they were Dems. Trump gives us every reason to hate him and has never tried to hide the fact that he hated us and was only interested in his base. How you find it surprising that we would is the real mystery.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t look good either way, lots of civil unrest. My 401k almost doubled under Trump, I may soon unload it into gold and cash just to preserve my incredible gains.
You may want to look into the penalties for unloading a 401k early... it almost costs... double
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
I have presented you with a lot of statistical anomalies and you have chosen to avoid addressing them directly because you cannot intelligently do so without being laughed at. Whoever posted the anti trump sentiment knows that’s not a valid retort, so the anti Trump voter turnout only happened in disproportionate numbers in the exact states and counties Biden needed in Order to win?

Posting nonsense, then claiming you are following the science, and asking why people won't refute your nonsense, is just that. Nonsense.
 
You state all of this as if it's fact, yet the Trump campaign has yet to be able to present any actual proof of it's accusations in court. They are being laughed out of court by judges that Trump and other republicans appointed.

Would it surprise you to know that almost none of this is fact? This is basically sidney powell and rudi guliani's lawsuits wrapped into a summary. They continue to present zero actual evidence, and instead rely on assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
Powell lawsuit seems to be going well:


Haha, oh man. I'm sure if they throw out enough names, they will find an actual county in Michigan

 
  • Like
Reactions: ChicagoTiger85
ADVERTISEMENT