7318
Comments (231)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
104
Grindelwald 104 points ago +105 / -1

She tells journalist, obviously uyou do not understand the legal process. We have the evidence and are going to present it in court.

The media thinks that they are the ones to validate evidence and decide who is President. No lawyer is going to show their entire hand to the press.

11
deleted 11 points ago +12 / -1
5
cal5583 5 points ago +6 / -1

right notice how the one with her head up her ass is british.

4
SHALL_NOT 4 points ago +4 / -0

Noooo why don’t you tell us everything you know? It’s either because you don’t have anything or because you don’t want your opponents to know what you have.

Consider how each side would act if they were in the right vs in the wrong. If the dems were honest, they would embrace a full audit. If they knew it would prove trump to be a charlatan demagogue they would absolutely sink their teeth into this. If they are dishonest and know they will lose this, they would try to win in the court of public opinion and obstruct every auditing effort while trying to run the clock out on the time limit.

If trump is being honest, he would be doing everything he can to get this proven. He would be trying to fight back in the court of public opinion, and he would be holding his cards close to his chest. If trump was putting us on, he would not be demanding audits, because they would show him to be a charlatan demagogue. Instead, he would be hanging back and stirring the pot from afar. Maybe he would concede “under threats of violence” or some other reason that would stir the pot. Then he would be consistentlytossing in legally unactionable, but anger inducing, inputs.

What criminal would encourage an investigation that would prove themselves guilty; what innocent person would obstruct an investigation that would have them exonerated?