If There was no Fraud, Why Lie?

[Lastamender]

Did not expect anything else. They did show a clip that proved the protest was more than legitimate when Eastman explained what and why they wanted it. I am sure they did not intend to do that.

CBS News’ ’60 Minutes’ Omits Key Facts, Makes Incorrect Statements Covering the Lawfare Against Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman​

CBS News’ ’60 Minutes’ Omits Key Facts, Makes Incorrect Statements Covering the Lawfare Against Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman | The Star News Network

arizonasuntimes.com

 

[Lastamender]

Next, Pelley claimed that “50 Trump lawsuits were failing” after the 2020 election. However, this has been refuted by a report put out by physicist John Droz and his team of statistical PhDs. They compiled a list of all 92 lawsuits from the 2020 election, and found that of the 31 that were decided on the merits, Trump and/or the Republican plaintiff prevailed on 23.


Pelley said that “two days before the [electoral] count, Eastman came to this Oval Office meeting with a radical interpretation” of the Constitution, referring to a meeting Eastman had with Trump, Pence, and others. This isn’t an accurate description, since the disbarment trial revealed that almost all legal scholars who have studied the issue of whether the vice president has substantive authority in this area have either concluded that he does or that the law is not clear.


You are being lied to. This is still part of the failed cover up. Same source as OP.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Next, Pelley claimed that “50 Trump lawsuits were failing” after the 2020 election. However, this has been refuted by a report put out by physicist John Droz and his team of statistical PhDs. They compiled a list of all 92 lawsuits from the 2020 election, and found that of the 31 that were decided on the merits, Trump and/or the Republican plaintiff prevailed on 23.


Pelley said that “two days before the [electoral] count, Eastman came to this Oval Office meeting with a radical interpretation” of the Constitution, referring to a meeting Eastman had with Trump, Pence, and others. This isn’t an accurate description, since the disbarment trial revealed that almost all legal scholars who have studied the issue of whether the vice president has substantive authority in this area have either concluded that he does or that the law is not clear.


You are being lied to. This is still part of the failed cover up. Same source as OP.

Some Trump followers are beyond desperate. You are one of them.

None of what you posted is true. And Trump has plenty of reasons to worry as to what will happen in the trials. The facts are not on his side.

 

[Lastamender]

The show omitted much of the interview, but allowed a few statements by Eastman to remain. Eastman said during the interview, “We did nothing wrong, and it’s important to counteract the false narratives on that, because all of my actions were designed to investigate illegality in the election to see if they have an impact. … We’re no longer disagreeing about means to get to shared ends, and we’ve got wings of the two parties disagree fundamentally on the ends and the purpose of our government.”

That is the MSM. Dishonest and manipulative. They think you are stupid and you are proving them right.

 

[Lastamender]

Some Trump followers are beyond desperate. You are one of them.

None of what you posted is true. And Trump has plenty of reasons to worry as to what will happen in the trials. The facts are not on his side.

GFY

 

[Delldude]

Did not expect anything else. They did show a clip that proved the protest was more than legitimate when Eastman explained what and why they wanted it. I am sure they did not intend to do that.

CBS News’ ’60 Minutes’ Omits Key Facts, Makes Incorrect Statements Covering the Lawfare Against Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman​

CBS News’ ’60 Minutes’ Omits Key Facts, Makes Incorrect Statements Covering the Lawfare Against Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman | The Star News Network

arizonasuntimes.com

60 minutes is famous for selective editing and omitting facts.

 

[Muhammed]

The facts are not on his side.

You use that term very loosely.

I challenge you to cite a few of these alleged "facts" that you believe are the most relevant and provide a logical reasoned argument to support your unsupported conclusion that they are facts so that the USMB forum may scrutinise your argument.

I predict that you are going to scamper away from that challenge like a yappy little *****.