(11-06-2020 07:23 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote: [ -> ]can y'all learn to crop your replies? We don't need to see Comey's face and re-read 36 reply threads to just to get to your post.
Simply hit "NEW REPLY" on the lower right of the page.
Say what?
(11-06-2020 07:25 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote: [ -> ]Say what?
read. and (maybe) learn.
(11-06-2020 07:20 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2020 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2020 05:07 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2020 04:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2020 03:42 PM)macgar32 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh...
The deep state...I didn't realize we were talking about the DEEP STATE conspiracy
Now I understand.
I guess the Clintons don't belong in that class.
And of course he is going to try to get whomever is running against Trump elected...Trump fired him for what he felt was his job.
If you don't think the embedded Federal bureaucratic class (Read: deep state) is a real thing, then you're nuts. Go spend a week in DC and talk to some of these people. I know them, went to school with them, met my parents friends who were them.
How do you think all these same people are able to keep cushy, well paid jobs for decades or until they die when the boss changes every 4-8 years? Wouldn't you think they'd have to go back home after that same 4-8 years? Nope.
I have immediate family members who have briefed 3 presidents...
And they did it because they were good at their job. Some people are not Partisan...They just do the work that needs to be done. That doesn't mean they are steering anything in a certain direction by pulling strings behind the scenes.
Tis what it Tis.
Everything is not a conspiracy.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? The embedded bureaucracy is what it is. As is often said- "Presidents and administrations come and go. We'll be here forever."
That's the attitude and clearly some, if not many will go to extraordinary lengths to make sure their little fiefdom is secure. We saw it in real time for more than four years now. You still think "Collusion" was real? Or a wholly made-up inside the beltway folly to try and remove a duly elected POTUS?
Superfly just said it...
Essentially stating the DEEP STATE wouldn't allow Biden to be investigated.
That is a conspiracy theory.
And as far as the entire collusion idea...It wasn't proven but there were definitely enough breadcrumbs to investigate.
Is it? Or is it just exposing bias. I mean--didnt Comey stand in front of the nation and meticulously explain everything Hillary did was illegal--sounding like he was laying the opening argument for charges---and then says--but we decided not to charge her cuz she didnt mean to commit a crime. Ok----a few months later---its clear Flynn did exactly what every NSA guy for every administration has done during a transition and had zero intent to commit a crime---but the FBI targets him and presses charges? Does anyone really think Flynn meant to commit a crime? Hell---I think its questionable if he even did commit a crime. regardless---it sure seems like his case was handled much differently than Hillary's.
As for collusion---there was literally NOTHING in the file when Mueller started other than an unproven dossier. If Mueller was truely ethical---the moment he opened that file and found nothing, he should have made it clear that investigation would be over in a few weeks at most. We now know that while all these officials were saying on TV there was evidence to prove that there was collusion--at the same time, in closed testimony under oath to Congress---they were all admitting there was no proof. Why the dichotomy? Because lying on TV isnt a big deal. On the other hand, lying to congress is federal crime--so they told the truth under oath. Thus, its clear there was simply never anything to support it----ever.
So, yeah--there is bias. That's hardly a conspiracy theory. Its pointing out flaws in government. If thats a conspiracy theory, then so is "systemic racism".
Alito steps in. THe SC is going to rule against those late ballots. Trump with a huge advantage on the provisionals yet to be counted.
MI will now hold oversight hearings tomorrow at 10am. Its time for them to start considering to overturn the fraud and vote for the Trump electors.
Didn't the supreme court allow them, or at least punt on the issue, to begin with?
(11-06-2020 08:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Alito steps in. THe SC is going to rule against those late ballots. Trump with a huge advantage on the provisionals yet to be counted.
I believe the Trump complaint on these late arriving ballots will hold up as the decision to extend the deadline was made by the PA Scotus not the PA Legislature which by the US Consitution has all of the decision making power for elections. The PA Scotus acted extra-Constitutionally and it's a pretty easy ruling for the US Scotus.
What I am afraid of is that the PA precincts ignored the US Scotus initial order to set aside late arriving ballots and will say ooops sorry.
So while Trump will win on the merits it will amount to nothing.
(11-06-2020 08:08 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the supreme court allow them, or at least punt on the issue, to begin with?
the punted at a 4-4 vote allowing it but with the order to set aside late ballots.
they did not rule on the merit of the argument.
(11-06-2020 08:08 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the supreme court allow them, or at least punt on the issue, to begin with?
No, they refused to rule at the time. THey didnt "stop" them at the time, but they didnt allow them. That is still an open case that will be heard.
(11-06-2020 08:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2020 08:08 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the supreme court allow them, or at least punt on the issue, to begin with?
No, they refused to rule at the time. THey didnt "stop" them at the time, but they didnt allow them. That is still an open case that will be heard.
Got it. So they are the ballots that the election coverage keeps referring to as having already been set aside.
(11-06-2020 08:20 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2020 08:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2020 08:08 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the supreme court allow them, or at least punt on the issue, to begin with?
No, they refused to rule at the time. THey didnt "stop" them at the time, but they didnt allow them. That is still an open case that will be heard.
Got it. So they are the ballots that the election coverage keeps referring to as having already been set aside.
yes...any ballots received after 8 p.m. on election day, regardless of postmark, can be counted but are to be set aside.
(I assume set aside so if they are ruled ineligible the count would be removed from the vote tallies)
I can't envision that the supreme court will invalidate the votes of citizens who were casting votes in what they were told was a legal manner, but that's just me.
Judges loathe substituting their own decision for votes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alito's order says neither the PA Secretary of the commonwealth or the GOP say whether PA has complied with the law. If you cant prove the law was followed, there's going to be some striking down of some votes.
AZ just had a dump of 3000 votes, and 75% went to Trump.
**** just got real...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
(11-06-2020 08:08 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't the supreme court allow them, or at least punt on the issue, to begin with?
Thats what they were supposed to do under hte original order as I understand it---but apparently it was ignored in many counties.