Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
    You should read the links that you post:

    Election infrastructure officials: 2020 election was "most secure in American history"


    In a joint statement, members of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council, CISA Assistant Director, the National Secretaries of State, and others called the 2020 election the "most secure in American history"

    CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council are under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security.

    The statement from the agencies said there is "there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

    "While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too," the statement said. "When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections."
    The statement refers to the electronic voting systems like Dominion that were used. Not that there was zero fraud perpetrated by individual persons, which there always is.

    "Most secure" means that there was no changing of votes due to "Chinese thermostats"

    "Most secure" means that the Dominion voting machines were not hacked by Venezuela or any other country.

    "Most secure" means that the batshit claims of these lunatics are just that: Batshit claims by lunatics.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	carone-powell-trump-1204201.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	229.1 KB
ID:	1578055
    Click image for larger version

Name:	74c81fb9-21d7-47b6-ab68-3048923eec21.jpeg?width=780&height=520&rect=4681x3121&offset=0x0.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	79.8 KB
ID:	1578056

    I repeat, nobody has claimed that this was a "flawless perfect election" as you have asserted. That sort of hyperbolic alternate-reality nonsense is the domain of narcissists, con men and cultists.

    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    I never mentioned fraud arrests. Or even claimed a lack of fraud. Perhaps you can link to my post or posts where I did.
    “Fascism not only promotes violence but relishes it, viscerally so. It cherishes audacity, bravado and superbia, promotes charismatic leaders, demagogues and ‘strong men’, and seeks to flood or control the media.”

    "Donald Trump and his supporters and allies are a clear and present danger to American democracy" ~ Judge J. Michael Luttig

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Fraud does not require success.... But if want impact as many as 1 in 7 voters would not have voted for Joe if the Hunter laptop story had not been supressed and labeled Russian dusinfo. Or the sudden massive spikes in turnout in Dem counties with CTCL embeds from zuck buck's.
      Is that original, or Fox?
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • I'll never understand the undying loyalty to Donald Trump and the manifestation of his excuses within his supporters. He's not going to hire you if you continue to push his lies. The guy lost the Presidency, Senate and House in 4 years, but it was because the election was 'stolen' which was the reason he lost. None of his blunders were his fault. Just unfair media coverage. Please.

        I remember 2003 pre-Iraq War, Canada, Germany, France etc. all saying it was wrong and that there were no WMDs. The US ignored them, changed French fries into Freedom Fries, and what to you know, they were right all along. Jump to 2020, wouldn't there be a vested interest from these other countries, if the US elections were actually stolen? Especially a country like Canada which is right next door? If the US election was actually rigged, wouldn't they need to sound the alarm and put in necessary precautions in their own elections, which they just had? Wouldn't there be intelligence sharing? This is the real world. Not Donald "No I don't take any responsibility' Trump's magical, senile imagination.

        It's been sad seeing grown, respectable adults who support Trump do this still. Supporting his presidency is one thing, maybe you got something out of it you liked. Supporting his excuses for losing is embarassing. I think a lot of us are well past our maxed out intake of second hand embarassment from this. I expect this type of stuff from college aged Democrats, not grown ass adults. Let's get back to the real world here. It's been almost a full year since Trump lost the election. It's time to move on and admit you got fooled (Probably by Facebook). And you don't even have to admit it to anyone, just tell yourself you got fooled and you'll be forgiven.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DOR View Post

          Is that original, or Fox?
          A study quoted by Mollie Hemmingway

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post

            A study quoted by Mollie Hemmingway
            So I was right: Fox.

            Mollie Hemingway of The Federalists, source of many fake science stories about COVID-19, outright lies about stolen elections, racist rants, paid for my Dick Uihlein (Hey! He's the Club for Growth guy!), pedophile protector (Roy Moore, remember?), anti-union …
            Mollie Hemingway, “[He Who Shall Not Be Named] is a demagogue with no real solutions for anything at all,” but also a reliably pro-Txxx commentator,” and “most reliable Txxx defender.”
            Mollie Hemingway, character assassin-designate targeting Director James Comey, Putin-pal Carter Page defender, and whistleblower outer.
            Mollie Hemingway, liar-in-chief for the brutal removal of peaceful protesters in front of St. John's Church, so the previous guy could have his photo op.




            Trust me?
            I'm an economist!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by statquo View Post
              I remember 2003 pre-Iraq War, Canada, Germany, France etc. all saying it was wrong and that there were no WMDs.
              Revisionist history. Canada DID NOT say there was no WMDs. In fact, Chretien came up with the Canadian compromise. Saddam had 30 days to prove he had no WMDs, else automatic war. This was later taken up by the British who shortened to 14 days. Canada was preparing for the Iraq War. 1 Brigade was preparing to be transported to that theatre. The British was preparing to supply another Battle Group to fully flush out 1 Brigade to 3 full Battle Groups with 3PPCLI as the reserve. Chretien decided to have it both ways by sending us to Afghanistan (which was a complete shock to the CF) instead.

              Also, we found Saddam's chemical stocks. They were buried, not destroyed (and leaking - no one is drinking the ground water), just not in the quantities that we had expected. We also found all of Saddam's nuclear weapons research. Again, buried, not destroyed.

              However, NO ONE said Saddam did not have WMDs, not even the French. Just that there were intel that suggests that they were not a threat but there is 100% undeniable facts that Saddam had violated the Terms of Surrender, including WMD developments. The French believed that the intel was not strong enough to suggest Saddam had a viable arsenal. There was zero doubt that he still was working on one which was a violation of the Terms of Surrender. The French believed sanctions is a viable course of action. After 11 Sept, just 2 years before, the Americans could not tolerate this strategic threat.

              Saddam was stupid enough to try something stupid. Osama Bin Laden showed him how.

              As an aside, according to the Law of Armed Combat, Canadian, French, and German military personelle were particpants in the Iraq War. French and German military officers stationed in embassies in Baghdad routinely gave AARs to the Americans. Canadian Naval task forces were protecting the flanks of American carriers launching strikes against Iraq. Canadian military officers on officer exchange with the British and Americans, wearing Canadian uniforms, were engaged in direct combat against the Iraqis.
              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Nov 21,, 18:48.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Georgia Secretary Of State Says Trump 'Had No Idea How Elections Work'
                Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) wrote in a new book that former President Donald Trump demonstrated little understanding of how elections are conducted during their recorded Jan. 2 phone call.

                The Georgia elections official on Tuesday released his book, “Integrity Counts,” which details how Trump’s persistent disinformation after the election culminated in the hourlong phone call in which the then-president told him, “I just want to find 11,780 votes,” the exact number he needed to flip Georgia’s result in his favor.

                “This repeated request for votes showed me that President Trump really had no idea how elections work. The secretary of state’s office doesn’t allocate any votes,” Raffensperger wrote in an annotation of the call, the transcript of which is included in the book, according to The Hill.

                Raffensperger, a lifelong Republican, told The Hill in an interview he wasn’t sure if Trump was being intentionally dishonest or if he actually believed the claims he was making.

                “At the time of the call in January, I didn’t know if he believed what he was saying. I didn’t know if he was trying to push a narrative, or was he just believing stuff that was fed to him?” Raffensperger said. “As a conservative-with-a-capital-C Republican, I’m disappointed like everyone else is. But the cold hard facts are that President Trump did come up short in the state of Georgia.”

                Trump made a number of false allegations during that call, which Raffensperger investigated and debunked.

                Trump said he was told that close to 5,000 ballots had been cast in the names of dead people. Raffensperger’s audit found two cases where this had occurred. Trump said 4,925 out-of-state voters had cast ballots in Georgia. Raffensperger found 300. And Trump repeatedly suggested that Fulton County officials shredded thousands of ballots. There’s no evidence that happened.

                “Every single allegation that he made in that call and every allegation that his surrogates made, we ran those down and they were not supported by the facts,” Raffensperger told The Hill.

                In the face of vocal and public pressure from Trump and allies after the election, Raffensperger staunchly refuted claims about widespread fraud in Georgia’s election, prompting harassment and death threats from Trump supporters.

                In May, he was criticized for backing ― and therefore lending credence to ― a further, disinformation-driven inspection of the ballots. He said he supported it in order to “restore voter confidence” even though he maintained there was no evidence of widespread fraud.
                ___________

                And it continues to this day, batshit claims that there was significant voter fraud that would've swung the election. I don't think we'll ever know how much lasting damage Trump did this country.
                “Fascism not only promotes violence but relishes it, viscerally so. It cherishes audacity, bravado and superbia, promotes charismatic leaders, demagogues and ‘strong men’, and seeks to flood or control the media.”

                "Donald Trump and his supporters and allies are a clear and present danger to American democracy" ~ Judge J. Michael Luttig

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DOR View Post

                  So I was right: Fox.

                  Mollie Hemingway of The Federalists, source of many fake science stories about COVID-19, outright lies about stolen elections, racist rants, paid for my Dick Uihlein (Hey! He's the Club for Growth guy!), pedophile protector (Roy Moore, remember?), anti-union …
                  Mollie Hemingway, “[He Who Shall Not Be Named] is a demagogue with no real solutions for anything at all,” but also a reliably pro-Txxx commentator,” and “most reliable Txxx defender.”
                  Mollie Hemingway, character assassin-designate targeting Director James Comey, Putin-pal Carter Page defender, and whistleblower outer.
                  Mollie Hemingway, liar-in-chief for the brutal removal of peaceful protesters in front of St. John's Church, so the previous guy could have his photo op.



                  So many lies in so few words....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Revisionist history. Canada DID NOT say there was no WMDs. In fact, Chretien came up with the Canadian compromise. Saddam had 30 days to prove he had no WMDs, else automatic war. This was later taken up by the British who shortened to 14 days. Canada was preparing for the Iraq War. 1 Brigade was preparing to be transported to that theatre. The British was preparing to supply another Battle Group to fully flush out 1 Brigade to 3 full Battle Groups with 3PPCLI as the reserve. Chretien decided to have it both ways by sending us to Afghanistan (which was a complete shock to the CF) instead.

                    Also, we found Saddam's chemical stocks. They were buried, not destroyed (and leaking - no one is drinking the ground water), just not in the quantities that we had expected. We also found all of Saddam's nuclear weapons research. Again, buried, not destroyed.

                    However, NO ONE said Saddam did not have WMDs, not even the French. Just that there were intel that suggests that they were not a threat but there is 100% undeniable facts that Saddam had violated the Terms of Surrender, including WMD developments. The French believed that the intel was not strong enough to suggest Saddam had a viable arsenal. There was zero doubt that he still was working on one which was a violation of the Terms of Surrender. The French believed sanctions is a viable course of action. After 11 Sept, just 2 years before, the Americans could not tolerate this strategic threat.

                    Saddam was stupid enough to try something stupid. Osama Bin Laden showed him how.

                    As an aside, according to the Law of Armed Combat, Canadian, French, and German military personelle were particpants in the Iraq War. French and German military officers stationed in embassies in Baghdad routinely gave AARs to the Americans. Canadian Naval task forces were protecting the flanks of American carriers launching strikes against Iraq. Canadian military officers on officer exchange with the British and Americans, wearing Canadian uniforms, were engaged in direct combat against the Iraqis.
                    Canadian intelligence assessments of Saddam's Iraq got it right, new paper says

                    A new research paper says Canadian intelligence assessments on Iraq were generally accurate in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 — unlike reports produced in Washington and London that were used to justify war.

                    Almost nothing has been said outside government circles about Canadian judgments that Saddam Hussein had no active weapons of mass destruction program — partly to avoid embarrassing American and British counterparts, according to the paper, which was recently published in the journal Intelligence and National Security.

                    "Canada's intelligence assessments on Iraq in 2002 and 2003 subsequently turned out to be largely correct, while the analysis of most other countries on key Iraq issues — as far as is publicly known — was flawed," the research paper concludes.

                    "The most notable difference in the Canadian case was the lack of any significant political or other outside pressure on assessment organizations to slant the Iraq analysis in a particular direction."

                    "I have to tell you, I've been reading all my briefings about the weapons of mass destruction and I'm not convinced."- Memoirs of former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

                    "Getting it Right: Canadian Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, 2002-2003" was researched and written by Alan Barnes, a senior fellow at the Centre for Security, Intelligence and Defence Studies at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

                    He is far from a neutral party on the topic, having been closely involved with the production of the Canadian assessments on Iraq during this period. Barnes was lead drafter of 21 analyses by the Privy Council Office's Intelligence Assessment Secretariat (IAS) and, as director of the secretariat's Middle East and Africa Division, supervised the production of 20 others.

                    Barnes also drew on documents released by key federal agencies over the years — though much classified material remains under wraps — as well as interviews with 11 managers and analysts from the intelligence community who were involved in the assessments.

                    He found that Canada's assessments of U.S. policy on Iraq, Baghdad's weapons capabilities, the regional implications of an invasion and the subsequent internal instability of Iraq proved to be generally on the mark.

                    Information included in Chrétien briefings

                    The paper also points to evidence the information was included in briefings given to then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, whose Liberal government decided not to participate in the Iraq War.

                    In late August 2002, a Canadian interdepartmental experts group completed an assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, including chemical, biological and nuclear arms.

                    It concluded any remaining chemical agents or ballistic missiles from prior to the 1991 Gulf War could only exist in very small quantities, and would likely no longer be useful because of poor storage conditions, Barnes writes.


                    The question of whether Baghdad was rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities since the departure of United Nations inspectors in 1998 got to the heart of the U.S. administration's claims that Iraq was a growing threat to the world, the paper says.

                    Canadian analysts "could see no convincing indications that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. They did not have confidence in the soundness of the evidence being cited by the U.S. as proof of Iraqi nuclear activity."

                    Nor could the analysts detect signs that Baghdad had restarted production of chemical weapons or was preparing to do so.


                    Five Eyes analysts working with same intelligence

                    The extensive sharing of intelligence meant that analysts in the Five Eyes alliance — the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — were largely working with the same body of information in trying to make sense of things.

                    Analysts in Ottawa were well aware of the disagreements taking place in the other Five Eyes countries over Iraq's purported WMDs, as well as the pressure put on analysts in those countries by senior officials to come up with specific conclusions to support the policy line, Barnes says.

                    He detected a fairly consistent pattern:
                    • In their one-on-one interactions with their Canadian counterparts, allied analysts often expressed reservations about the evidence and avoided firm judgments.
                    • The classified written intelligence products that Canada received from allies would express firmer, but still qualified, conclusions while acknowledging the limits of the information.
                    • Finally, the public position of allied governments — in statements by senior officials or documents released to the public — would express unconditional conclusions on the basis of what was claimed to be conclusive evidence.
                    "The knowledge that many allied analysts shared similar reservations about the quality of the information on Iraq's WMDs gave Canadian analysts and managers greater confidence that they were on the right track," the paper says.

                    CSIS tended to back Washington's claims

                    Even so, there were differing views.

                    Canadian Security Intelligence Service analysis of Iraq's mass-destruction capabilities tended to support the claims coming from Washington, Barnes found.

                    "This is likely a reflection of the discomfort of CSIS managers and analysts at being out of step with the U.S. intelligence community on a critical issue which might compromise their close operational links," Barnes writes in the research paper.

                    A CSIS report that said Saddam appeared eager to quickly acquire a nuclear weapons capability was withdrawn after the IAS raised concerns, he says.

                    "However, by then it had been shared with the U.S., giving Washington the impression that the Canadian intelligence community concurred with the U.S. claims when this was not the case."


                    In contrast, National Defence analysts had extensive knowledge of these issues, gleaned from participation in the earlier UN inspections in Iraq and "intimate familiarity with the available intelligence over the previous decade."

                    In early March 2003, the department published "Iraq: No Smoke, No Gun," which deemed it unlikely that WMDs would be found.

                    Indeed, only a small number of abandoned chemical munitions from prior to 1991 were ultimately discovered in Iraq.

                    Chrétien skeptical of U.S. rationale

                    The IAS assessments were a significant element of verbal briefings on Iraq given to Chrétien by Claude Laverdure, the foreign and defence policy adviser to the prime minister, the paper says.

                    Chrétien, skeptical of the U.S. rationale, took the position that Canada would support military action against Iraq if it were sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

                    In his memoirs, Chrétien says he told then-U.S. President George W. Bush in September 2002: "I have to tell you, I've been reading all my briefings about the weapons of mass destruction and I'm not convinced. I think the evidence is very shaky."

                    Laverdure told Barnes that he remembers tough discussions in various meetings with Bush and then-British prime minister Tony Blair, as well as with other senior U.S. and U.K. officials, who demanded to know why the Canadians refused to accept the conclusions in the American and British reports.

                    During one meeting, Laverdure recalled, Blair "was mad, mad, mad and Chretién became irritated ... Blair kept saying to Jean Chrétien, 'Can't you see it, we get the same reports,' and Chrétien replied, 'No, I don't see it."'
                    In normal circumstances, almost all Canadian intelligence assessments dealing with foreign and defence matters are shared, in whole or in part, with the Five Eyes allies, Barnes writes.

                    "This did not happen with IAS assessments on Iraq, which were classified 'Canadian Eyes Only' in order to avoid uncomfortable disagreements with the U.S. intelligence community which would exacerbate the sensitivities affecting relations at the political level."


                    Barnes says that when Robert Wright became Canada's security and intelligence co-ordinator in April 2003, he asked to see all of the IAS reporting on Iraq's WMDs.

                    Wright would later make it clear "that there was to be no 'triumphalism' for having made more accurate assessments."

                    Barnes notes the only public acknowledgement of the Canadian record was an op-ed piece by Paul Heinbecker, Canada's ambassador to the UN during the Iraq crisis, which discussed U.S. intelligence and included a cryptic comment: "The Canadian analysis was better."

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Looks like CSIS was more concerned with upsetting the Americans publicly, but privately let them know about their doubts. From multiple sources, it also appears only if UN Security Council sanctioned it, Canada would have joined. I'm well aware that Canada participated with 3 ships 'patrolling' the Persian Gulf as you said, and that some of its pilots participated to 'fulfill NORAD obligations' and cross exchange troops went there.

                    In those early days the Committee saw two good reasons for Canada to play a role in Afghanistan. One was supporting our long-time American ally in a time of need. The second was that any initiative that our Government could take to counter international terrorism, as called upon by the United Nations, had merit. In was only in 2003 that a feeling developed among some Canadians that Canada re-deployed troops back to Afghanistan to appease the Americans, after former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to join forces with them in Iraq.

                    https://sencanada.ca/Content/SEN/Com...#_Toc200017458
                    In the fight against terrorism, Canada has committed about 2,000 troops to Afghanistan this summer, a significant contribution given the stretched state of the Canadian military. In February, Canada took command of the multinational naval group, known as Task Force 151, patrolling the Persian Gulf region. Canada is deploying three frigates in the area and the destroyer HMCS Iroquois is en route. In addition to 30 Canadian Forces personnel working at the U.S. Central Command in Qatar, there are 150 Canadian troops on exchange with U.S. and British forces in the area who could see action. These are real commitments, Sands notes, but largely overlooked because of the growing perception the Canadian government is reflexively anti-American.

                    https://web.archive.org/web/20080518...=M1ARTM0012457
                    It doesn't change the fact their intelligence came to the conclusion there most likely wasn't any WMDs or that they were obsolete and that was told privately to the US and British. Too bad they didn't listen but the wheels were in motion a full year beforehand.

                    Edit: This was an interesting article that talks about the domestic politics that went into the decision.
                    https://natoassociation.ca/why-canad...-iraq-in-2003/
                    Last edited by statquo; 04 Nov 21,, 08:18.

                    Comment


                    • In short, EVERYTHING I've stated EXACTLY the way I've stated. The programs were BURIED (and FOUND), not DESTOYED as DEMANDED by the Terms of Surrender.

                      Undeniable FACTS: Five chemical shells were found and maintained by the Iraqi Army. The Iraqis were working on the AL-SAMOUD 2 and ABALI-100 SSMs based on the Russian SA-2 SAM. The SA-2 carries a 200kg warhead designed to spread fragments for a plane to fly through. For SSM actions, the ONLY way this makes sense is ariel burst. I will let you guess burst of what. The UN ordered these rockets destroyed. The US found more than a dozen in storage.

                      The Iraqi military was testing a crop duster. By definition, a crop duster is a chemical delivery vehicle.

                      AGAIN, the US found the nuclear weapons research and the chemical weapons stocks, indicating that Saddam had ABSOLUTELY ZERO intentions of destroying them AS DEMANDED by the Terms of Surrender.

                      Were these weapons viable? Hell NO but that is NOT the point. The point is that Saddam was stupid enough to try to skirt the Terms of Surrender which meant he was stupid enough to try an Osama Bin Ladden. Getting rid of Saddam was the strategic imperative. The violation of the Terms of Surrender was the casus belli. Hell, Bush even offerred Saddam and his sons a last minute ticket out of Iraq to avoid war. Saddam didn't take it.

                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Nov 21,, 08:27.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        In short, EVERYTHING I've stated EXACTLY the way I've stated.
                        Chretien told Bush and Blair their intelligence was flimsy as Canadian intelligence came to their own conclusion that there was likely no WMD or obsolete. Also that they would have joined the invasion if sanctioned by the UN Security Council, not the 30 days as you said.

                        Too bad they didn't listen even though it wouldn't have made a difference.

                        Which brings me back to my point about listening to our neighbors, like say in relation to elections being 'rigged'.
                        Last edited by statquo; 04 Nov 21,, 08:26.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by statquo View Post
                          Chretien told Bush and Blair their intelligence was flimsy as Canadian intelligence came to their own conclusion that there was likely no WMD or obsolete.
                          How about reading what the article says instead of what you WANT it to say. The article DID NOT say Saddam did not violate the Terms of Surrender. I've listed in your face chemical delivery systems developments.

                          Originally posted by statquo View Post
                          Also that they would have joined the invasion if sanctioned by the UN Security Council, not the 30 days as you said.
                          What the hell did you think the Canadian Compromise was? It was a way to get the UNSC united on a single course of action. And no, we would not have joined. Not with the populace against the war. Chretien snaked his way out of it. That's why we went to Afghanistan instead.

                          Originally posted by statquo View Post
                          Too bad they didn't listen even though it wouldn't have made a difference.
                          Saddam was an intolerable strategic threat. After 11 Sept, the Americans could not allow ANYONE to repeat the WTC disaster and Saddam was the one with both the resources to do it and the stupidity to try.

                          Originally posted by statquo View Post
                          Which brings me back to my point about listening to our neighbors, like say in relation to elections being 'rigged'.
                          Their house. Their rules. Their mess. It is in our extreme interest not to piss them off, not even half of them.
                          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Nov 21,, 08:54.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • Jared Kushner Reportedly Blew Off Plea To Defuse Trump's 'Coup' Plotting

                            Jared Kushner rebuffed a desperate plea from the chief of staff of then-Vice President Mike Pence to intercede with Donald Trump on his “dangerous” push to overturn the presidential election, according to ABC News White House correspondent Jonathan Karl.

                            Kushner told Pence aide Marc Short he had neither the time nor the interest because he was working on “Middle East peace,” Karl recounted Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

                            “Please, Jared, can you talk to your father-in-law?” Short pleaded ahead of the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to Karl. “This is getting dangerous. Somebody’s got to tell him that Mike Pence can’t single-handedly overturn the election.”

                            Kushner and other Trump aides who “knew better ... simply took a step back and did nothing,” Karl said.

                            “It’s like John Stewart Mill’s quote all that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing,” Karl continued. “There were a lot of people doing nothing around Trump at that time.”


                            Short believed Kushner fully understood that Trump was “flat-out wrong” about Joe Biden’s election victory and said he knew that Trump had been defeated, according to Karl.

                            The incident is described in Karl’s book “Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show,” out on Tuesday.

                            Karl also talked on “Morning Joe” of plots “right in the White House” involving then chief of staff Mark Meadows “outlining a very specific plan with dates and times that was all centering on Mike Pence obeying the orders of Donald Trump. It was a plan that if Pence had gone along with would have resulted in a much bigger constitutional crisis than what we saw,” Karl said.

                            During the presidential transition, Meadows’ job was to “chase down, to pursue, every harebrained scheme that Donald Trump had, every conspiracy theory, to try to undo what is really the central miracle of American democracy ― a peaceful transition of power,” Karl said.

                            “Meadows was using the intelligence agencies, was pressuring the Pentagon, the Justice Department ... to use all means necessary to effectuate what really would have been a coup. I mean, let’s call it what it would have been. It was a coup — overturning a proper election.”


                            Meadows could not be reached for comment.
                            ________
                            “Fascism not only promotes violence but relishes it, viscerally so. It cherishes audacity, bravado and superbia, promotes charismatic leaders, demagogues and ‘strong men’, and seeks to flood or control the media.”

                            "Donald Trump and his supporters and allies are a clear and present danger to American democracy" ~ Judge J. Michael Luttig

                            Comment


                            • Corey Lewandowski said Trump knew the election was over but wanted to 'create enough doubt' so he could 'say he didn't lose and that it was stolen': book

                              Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's 2016 campaign manager, said Trump knew the 2020 election was over when the major news networks projected his loss but wanted to sow doubt about the results so he could say "he didn't lose," a new book by the ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl says.

                              Lewandowski, who was also an aide to Trump in 2020, made the comments during a call with Karl days after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the election last November. Trump had not conceded, and he continued to baselessly claim that the election was stolen from him. Karl said he'd asked Lewandowski for his thoughts on how the situation would play out.

                              "He knows it is over," Lewandowski told Karl about Trump. "He just wants to create enough doubt about Biden's victory so that when he leaves he can say he didn't lose and that it was stolen from him."


                              The conversation is reported in Karl's book "Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show," which comes out on Tuesday. Insider obtained an early copy of the book.

                              In the months leading up to Election Day, Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that voting by mail would lead to fraud. Election officials and experts rejected the statements as misinformation, and millions of Americans securely cast their ballots by mail.

                              After Trump lost, he elevated conspiracy theories that the election had been "stolen" from him and "rigged" against him through widespread voter fraud. Election officials said that the claims were false and that there was no evidence of fraud. Trump's own Department of Homeland Security said the election "was the most secure in American history."

                              Still, Trump spread falsehoods about the election. A Gallup poll conducted last November found that only 17% of Republicans said they thought reports about Biden's victory were accurate.

                              In a farewell speech a day before he left the White House, Trump acknowledged that a new administration would be inaugurated, but he did not formally concede or admit he lost the election.

                              More than a year after the election, Trump continues to cling to this narrative. Several polls this year suggested that many Republicans were still convinced the election was stolen from him.

                              In an NPR poll in November, most Republicans indicated they didn't trust elections in the country.

                              Lewandowski did not immediately return Insider's request for comment.
                              ____
                              “Fascism not only promotes violence but relishes it, viscerally so. It cherishes audacity, bravado and superbia, promotes charismatic leaders, demagogues and ‘strong men’, and seeks to flood or control the media.”

                              "Donald Trump and his supporters and allies are a clear and present danger to American democracy" ~ Judge J. Michael Luttig

                              Comment


                              • Woodward, Karl, Bender....I sure wish these reporters would have understood their civic responsibility and had said something in real time and not withhold information in order to sell books at a later date.
                                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                                Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X