1975
Comments (20)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
40
KAG4EVRodysseus11 40 points ago +40 / -0

yea, this has been known from the beginning. The rally at the capitol was properly scheduled and permitted (many people dont realize there are permitted rallies and demonstrations there literally every day of the year).

The person who paid for the permits was a dude named Ali, who has been active since 2016 as a periscope MAGA guy, but he is known to be sort of a grifter, kinda like the Qtard people just looking to sell books.

I dont know him personally, but I have seen bits of scopes in the past, and he has "donate!!" buttons and stuff, and I was told he has a petty criminal past.

So, yea, it was a planned event - somehow he got Trump to encourage people at the "stop the steal" Trump rally to go to the capitol and attend it.

11
dukeofdoorcounty 11 points ago +11 / -0

What? I thought those giant LED screens set themselves up.

1
nutmeg 1 point ago +2 / -1

"somehow he got Trump to...."

That doesn't sound good.

1
KAG4EVRodysseus11 1 point ago +2 / -1

Obviously Ali whispered into the ear of some people GEOTUS was listening too - probably some of the same Qtards who thought Pence actually had the ability to just unilaterally deny Electoral College votes. He didnt.

From beginning to end, the MAGA movement was hurt by dummies who whispered nonsense into Trumps ear that actually played into our enemy's hands.

If people on their own went to the capitol protest they would have had no link between his rally and the capitol one where some retards got violent. To be honest, I never thought having a stop the steal rally on that day in that city was a great idea strategically - it was playing into the enemy hands. Calls and emails to the Congresscritters, yes. In person demonstrations, in a different city, OK, maybe. But in person at the capitol the day of the vote there was too much risk vs too little reward, and I always thought so. Look what the uniparty did, and they set it all up in advance.

1
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pence absolutely can REFUSE TO OPEN a sealed elector ballot package. Happened in 1801, 1873 and 1877. He can't open the other sets, but the four states GA, MI, PA, WI ran their elections unconstitutionally and he could have "sent them back" to the state legislatures - 5 legislatures had written letters to Congress asking them to give more time for review.

1
KAG4EVRodysseus11 1 point ago +1 / -0

Happened in 1801, 1873 and 1877

those were BEFORE the electoral count act of 1878. They do NOT apply now.

5 legislatures had written letters to Congress asking them to give more time for review

That is meaningless. Those very same legislatures had a remedy - to pass a binding resolution appointing competing electors. They did NOT, and instead tried to pass the buck to Pence with a sternly worded letter.

It was unfair and a cowardly move by those legislatures to toss that live hand grenade into Pences lap, who was a solid MAGA VP, and it was an extreme disservice and incorrect for whatever supposed "Constitutional Scholars" to tell Trump that Pence had any discretionary role to play. He did not.

I DO fault Pence for ONE thing - he should have been up front when this idea was first floated to him, instead of leading the MAGA faithful (and Trump) on by being ambiguous.