Giuliani exclusive: What Trump told me right after FBI raid

[Faun]

Mmm....not really.

81 million > 74 million as of the last presidential election.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I imagine you covering your ears and saying loud LA LA LA.

No, not at all. The liberal witch hunts turned up nada, zero, nothing. Just liberal seething hate and rage. I didn't cover my ears either when bashing bush for his stupid wars, nor did I cover my ears when bashing O for his never ending spending and expansive wars, nor did I cover my ears when I bashed orange man for his operation snake juice.

 

[sealybobo]

No, not at all. The liberal witch hunts turned up nada, zero, nothing. Just liberal seething hate and rage. I didn't cover my ears either when bashing bush for his stupid wars, nor did I cover my ears when bashing O for his never ending spending and expansive wars, nor did I cover my ears when I bashed orange man for his operation snake juice.

Are you kidding? Anyone who died at the insurrection is blood on Trump's hands. He sent that nut job woman to the Capitol.

Now add Espionage to Trump's crimes.

Oh did you see his accountant just took the fall for Trump on his shady tax dodging practices?

Yes, all witch hunts

Weisselberg to plead guilty in Trump tax case​

 

[sealybobo]

I'm only one among 10s of millions who can see through the liberal lies

81 million voted for Biden.

 

[sealybobo]

No, not at all. The liberal witch hunts turned up nada, zero, nothing. Just liberal seething hate and rage. I didn't cover my ears either when bashing bush for his stupid wars, nor did I cover my ears when bashing O for his never ending spending and expansive wars, nor did I cover my ears when I bashed orange man for his operation snake juice.

You meant Which Hunt?

I know that we’ve all become numb to Trump by this point, but moments like this really shock you out of your stupor and make you think ‘That guy’s got to go.

 

[sealybobo]

No, not at all. The liberal witch hunts turned up nada, zero, nothing. Just liberal seething hate and rage. I didn't cover my ears either when bashing bush for his stupid wars, nor did I cover my ears when bashing O for his never ending spending and expansive wars, nor did I cover my ears when I bashed orange man for his operation snake juice.

What Trump Really Means When He Cries ‘Witch Hunt’

Trump has tweeted the term nearly 300 times since becoming president—and he’s not just using it as a distraction.

www.thenation.com

Since becoming president, Trump has tweeted the words “witch hunt” a total of 294 times, including, yes, during the Russia investigation. And before he was president? In 2013, he retweeted a supporter’s allegation that the investigation into the now-defunct Trump University was a “liberal witch hunt”—but ultimately paid $25 million to avoid a trial. In 2013, he complained in the same terms about corporate-fraud allegations against finance CEO Hank Greenberg (who settled for a cool $ 9.9 million). And in 2012, Trump used the phrase to defend Herman Cain—later his nominee for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors—from multiple accusations of sexual harassment. Poor Herman seemingly couldn’t buy his way out, so he withdrew his name from consideration.

If Trump wants to convince people that he’s innocent, papering himself with a phrase that he previously used to defend guilty parties doesn’t seem like a brilliant move. But it’s actually a shrewd tactic. The repetition itself can serve a powerful, reality-shifting function: A 2015 study on the “reiteration effect” confirmed that when false information is repeated often enough, people come to believe it.

 

[sealybobo]

Links.

Since becoming president, Trump has tweeted the words “witch hunt” a total of 294 times, including, yes, during the Russia investigation. And before he was president? In 2013, he retweeted a supporter’s allegation that the investigation into the now-defunct Trump University was a “liberal witch hunt”—but ultimately paid $25 million to avoid a trial. In 2013, he complained in the same terms about corporate-fraud allegations against finance CEO Hank Greenberg (who settled for a cool $ 9.9 million). And in 2012, Trump used the phrase to defend Herman Cain—later his nominee for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors—from multiple accusations of sexual harassment. Poor Herman seemingly couldn’t buy his way out, so he withdrew his name from consideration.

If Trump wants to convince people that he’s innocent, papering himself with a phrase that he previously used to defend guilty parties doesn’t seem like a brilliant move. But it’s actually a shrewd tactic. The repetition itself can serve a powerful, reality-shifting function: A 2015 study on the “reiteration effect” confirmed that when false information is repeated often enough, people come to believe it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Since becoming president, Trump has tweeted the words “witch hunt” a total of 294 times, including, yes, during the Russia investigation. And before he was president? In 2013, he retweeted a supporter’s allegation that the investigation into the now-defunct Trump University was a “liberal witch hunt”—but ultimately paid $25 million to avoid a trial. In 2013, he complained in the same terms about corporate-fraud allegations against finance CEO Hank Greenberg (who settled for a cool $ 9.9 million). And in 2012, Trump used the phrase to defend Herman Cain—later his nominee for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors—from multiple accusations of sexual harassment. Poor Herman seemingly couldn’t buy his way out, so he withdrew his name from consideration.

If Trump wants to convince people that he’s innocent, papering himself with a phrase that he previously used to defend guilty parties doesn’t seem like a brilliant move. But it’s actually a shrewd tactic. The repetition itself can serve a powerful, reality-shifting function: A 2015 study on the “reiteration effect” confirmed that when false information is repeated often enough, people come to believe it.

Clinton actually lied and fabricated a fake dossier which was a proven hoax. There was no Russian collusion. That was all seething rage and hate by liberals and it continued with emotional collapses and desperate attempts at impeachment over lies and deception.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You meant Which Hunt?

I know that we’ve all become numb to Trump by this point, but moments like this really shock you out of your stupor and make you think ‘That guy’s got to go.

Well, yeah there were so many fake hunts by liberals all based in emotion and no substance. It's abhorrent.

 

[sealybobo]

No, not at all. The liberal witch hunts turned up nada, zero, nothing. Just liberal seething hate and rage. I didn't cover my ears either when bashing bush for his stupid wars, nor did I cover my ears when bashing O for his never ending spending and expansive wars, nor did I cover my ears when I bashed orange man for his operation snake juice.

If you believe that, you're too far gone to talk sense to.

I drew a line. Do you believe the 2020 election was rigged? Then you're a fucking idiot. That's all the evidence I need.

 

[sealybobo]

Trump is not the president. He is not dealing with Congress, he is being persecuted by them.

You misspelled PROSECUTED.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, yeah there were so many fake hunts by liberals all based in emotion and no substance. It's abhorrent.

Are you kidding me? Remember you were so up in arms that Clinton lied under oath? Then Trump says anyone who pleads the 5th is guilty? Then when he finally has to testify, he pleads the 5th?

Oh you were so outraged that he lied about sleeping with that woman, because it was under oath supposedly. Fuck you!

Then Trump lies about Stormy Daniels, but you're okay with it, because he wasn't under oath.

Then Trump proceeded to lie continuously for 4 years and you didn't mind, because he wasn't under oath.

Fuck you.

 

[Lastamender]

You misspelled PROSECUTED.

You just plain missed.

 

[sealybobo]

They are desperate

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Isn't trying to rig an election unconstitutional?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September, Trump strongly implied that he would fill Ginsburg’s seat with someone who would help him steal the election. The election, Trump claimed, “will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine Justices.”

The Court did hand down several pre-election decisions that likely diminished Biden’s vote count around the margins by making it harder for voters to cast a ballot by mail (mail-in voters were especially likely to support Biden over Trump). And before the election, much of the Court’s right flank endorsed radical doctrinal changes that would have made it easier for Trump to steal a closer election. But the justices have largely stayed away from post-election lawsuits.

A much-hyped case seeking to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying Biden’s victory ended in a one-sentence order telling Trump’s allies to go pound sand. A similar case brought by the state of Texas was denied because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Why was Trump so wrong about his chances of seizing power by convincing the courts to overturn the election?

The answer is that Trump’s post-election lawsuits failed for a variety of interlocking reasons.

First, Trump and his allies just didn’t have very good legal arguments. In some cases, they brought penny-ante claims that couldn’t have changed the result of the election even if they prevailed. In others, they made factual claims that relied entirely on speculation — or even relied on conspiracy theories incubated on social media. In some cases, Trump or his allies made legal arguments that were the exact opposite of the arguments they made in other cases. There are no good legal arguments that could have justified tossing out the election results, and the clownishness of Trump’s legal strategy only drew attention to the weakness of his claims.

To be sure, judges are not immune to motivated reasoning, and it’s easy to find cases where highly partisan judges reached dubious conclusions that benefited their political party. But Trump’s lawyers gave the president’s would-be allies on the judiciary very little to work with if they hoped to craft a pro-Trump opinion that didn’t sound ridiculous. There are judges whoplace a thumb on the scales of justice, but even the most partisan judge can’t make a mouse weigh more than an elephant.

Second, Biden won a commanding victory over Trump. The president-elect won by a 4.5 percentage point margin, the largest victory since Barack Obama’s landslide in 2008, and the second-largest victory of the 21st century. Significantly, Biden won 306 electoral votes, meaning that partisan judges would have had to overturn the results in three states to steal the election for Trump.

In many of the pivotal states, Biden’s margins were harrowingly close — such as the tipping-point state of Wisconsin, which Biden won by only about 20,000 votes. But that’s many times more than the 537 votes that separated Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore when the Supreme Court threw the election to Bush in 2000.

Finally, members of the Supreme Court who might have been inclined to swing the election to Trump if it had been closer did not lay the groundwork for such a move. A couple of pre-election rulings certainly sparked concern from many legal observers: Shortly before the election, several justices endorsed a theory that could have forced a handful of key states to toss out certain late-arriving ballots — even though those ballots were lawfully cast under existing election rules. But in the states that decided the election, Biden won by comfortable enough margins that his victory was assured even without these late-arriving ballots.

Trump reshaped the Supreme Court in his four years, but the kind of radical break from existing election law that could have overturned the results takes years of judicial labor, and it takes a majority determined to transform the law. Though Chief Justice John Roberts has authored several important decisions diminishing voting rights, and he’s joined several others, he has recently signaled that he thinks his more conservative colleagues are going too far. Meanwhile, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court just a week before the election.

Roberts’s cold feet and Barrett’s late arrival matter because the law is an iterative process. A conservative majority typically moves the law to the right in incremental steps — handing down one decision that may limit voting rights around the margins, and then citing that decision in a future case to limit voting rights even more. Over time, a determined majority can bring about revolutionary change, but that process typically takes years. The Court’s current majority simply hasn’t had enough time to lay the groundwork (if it were so inclined) for the kind of radical decisions that could have handed Trump a second term.

Let’s examine each of these factors in turn.

Why Trump’s attempt to steal the election was too much even for Republican judges

Judges are highly political, but they aren’t exactly like politicians.

www.vox.com

 

[struth]

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Isn't trying to rig an election unconstitutional?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September, Trump strongly implied that he would fill Ginsburg’s seat with someone who would help him steal the election. The election, Trump claimed, “will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine Justices.”

The Court did hand down several pre-election decisions that likely diminished Biden’s vote count around the margins by making it harder for voters to cast a ballot by mail (mail-in voters were especially likely to support Biden over Trump). And before the election, much of the Court’s right flank endorsed radical doctrinal changes that would have made it easier for Trump to steal a closer election. But the justices have largely stayed away from post-election lawsuits.

A much-hyped case seeking to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying Biden’s victory ended in a one-sentence order telling Trump’s allies to go pound sand. A similar case brought by the state of Texas was denied because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Why was Trump so wrong about his chances of seizing power by convincing the courts to overturn the election?

The answer is that Trump’s post-election lawsuits failed for a variety of interlocking reasons.

First, Trump and his allies just didn’t have very good legal arguments. In some cases, they brought penny-ante claims that couldn’t have changed the result of the election even if they prevailed. In others, they made factual claims that relied entirely on speculation — or even relied on conspiracy theories incubated on social media. In some cases, Trump or his allies made legal arguments that were the exact opposite of the arguments they made in other cases. There are no good legal arguments that could have justified tossing out the election results, and the clownishness of Trump’s legal strategy only drew attention to the weakness of his claims.

To be sure, judges are not immune to motivated reasoning, and it’s easy to find cases where highly partisan judges reached dubious conclusions that benefited their political party. But Trump’s lawyers gave the president’s would-be allies on the judiciary very little to work with if they hoped to craft a pro-Trump opinion that didn’t sound ridiculous. There are judges whoplace a thumb on the scales of justice, but even the most partisan judge can’t make a mouse weigh more than an elephant.

Second, Biden won a commanding victory over Trump. The president-elect won by a 4.5 percentage point margin, the largest victory since Barack Obama’s landslide in 2008, and the second-largest victory of the 21st century. Significantly, Biden won 306 electoral votes, meaning that partisan judges would have had to overturn the results in three states to steal the election for Trump.

In many of the pivotal states, Biden’s margins were harrowingly close — such as the tipping-point state of Wisconsin, which Biden won by only about 20,000 votes. But that’s many times more than the 537 votes that separated Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore when the Supreme Court threw the election to Bush in 2000.

Finally, members of the Supreme Court who might have been inclined to swing the election to Trump if it had been closer did not lay the groundwork for such a move. A couple of pre-election rulings certainly sparked concern from many legal observers: Shortly before the election, several justices endorsed a theory that could have forced a handful of key states to toss out certain late-arriving ballots — even though those ballots were lawfully cast under existing election rules. But in the states that decided the election, Biden won by comfortable enough margins that his victory was assured even without these late-arriving ballots.

Trump reshaped the Supreme Court in his four years, but the kind of radical break from existing election law that could have overturned the results takes years of judicial labor, and it takes a majority determined to transform the law. Though Chief Justice John Roberts has authored several important decisions diminishing voting rights, and he’s joined several others, he has recently signaled that he thinks his more conservative colleagues are going too far. Meanwhile, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court just a week before the election.

Roberts’s cold feet and Barrett’s late arrival matter because the law is an iterative process. A conservative majority typically moves the law to the right in incremental steps — handing down one decision that may limit voting rights around the margins, and then citing that decision in a future case to limit voting rights even more. Over time, a determined majority can bring about revolutionary change, but that process typically takes years. The Court’s current majority simply hasn’t had enough time to lay the groundwork (if it were so inclined) for the kind of radical decisions that could have handed Trump a second term.

Let’s examine each of these factors in turn.

Why Trump’s attempt to steal the election was too much even for Republican judges

Judges are highly political, but they aren’t exactly like politicians.

www.vox.com

it is, and we saw the demafasict do it in 2016 and 2020

i’m not sure why you think a Court ruling on a case before it is. is riggin an election…odd

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Are you kidding me? Remember you were so up in arms that Clinton lied under oath? Then Trump says anyone who pleads the 5th is guilty? Then when he finally has to testify, he pleads the 5th?

Oh you were so outraged that he lied about sleeping with that woman, because it was under oath supposedly. Fuck you!

Then Trump lies about Stormy Daniels, but you're okay with it, because he wasn't under oath.

Then Trump proceeded to lie continuously for 4 years and you didn't mind, because he wasn't under oath.

Fuck you.

They've all lied dude. You're too emotional. Orange man pushed operation snake juice and you were all over that. Lol.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Are you kidding me? Remember you were so up in arms that Clinton lied under oath? Then Trump says anyone who pleads the 5th is guilty? Then when he finally has to testify, he pleads the 5th?

Oh you were so outraged that he lied about sleeping with that woman, because it was under oath supposedly. Fuck you!

Then Trump lies about Stormy Daniels, but you're okay with it, because he wasn't under oath.

Then Trump proceeded to lie continuously for 4 years and you didn't mind, because he wasn't under oath.

Fuck you.

I voted for bubba. I never thought the Rs should have gone on a witchhunt about his adulterous affair.

 

[Leo123]

Here is all we need to know

The provision for which Trump is under investigation has a maximum 10-year prison sentence.

After intensely criticizing Clinton for her handling of classified information, Trump signed a law upgrading the mishandling of secret records from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Sorry dude. No man is above the law, even the one who wrote the law.

You seem to know very little.

 

[j-mac]

Since becoming president, Trump has tweeted the words “witch hunt” a total of 294 times, including, yes, during the Russia investigation. And before he was president? In 2013, he retweeted a supporter’s allegation that the investigation into the now-defunct Trump University was a “liberal witch hunt”—but ultimately paid $25 million to avoid a trial. In 2013, he complained in the same terms about corporate-fraud allegations against finance CEO Hank Greenberg (who settled for a cool $ 9.9 million). And in 2012, Trump used the phrase to defend Herman Cain—later his nominee for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors—from multiple accusations of sexual harassment. Poor Herman seemingly couldn’t buy his way out, so he withdrew his name from consideration.

If Trump wants to convince people that he’s innocent, papering himself with a phrase that he previously used to defend guilty parties doesn’t seem like a brilliant move. But it’s actually a shrewd tactic. The repetition itself can serve a powerful, reality-shifting function: A 2015 study on the “reiteration effect” confirmed that when false information is repeated often enough, people come to believe it.

So, Twitter, the New Yorker, NYTimes, WaPo, USAToday, and Penn St. are your sources? I’d say you need to get out of your liberal bubble…it’s rotting your brain.

 

[sealybobo]

You seem to know very little.

It's all you should need to know hypocrite.