Fiona Hill: "The president was trying to stage a coup"

[marke]

Mueller covered up the truth about 9/11. What makes you think he wouldn't do the same for Trump?

Mueller surrounded himself with democrat attack dogs who hated Trump with a passion. His investigation was nothing more than a political witch hunt with the end goal of burning Trump at the stake.

 

[marke]

Mueller covered up the truth about 9/11. What makes you think he wouldn't do the same for Trump?

Miller covered up the FBI crimes of the 1960s in which four men were sentenced to life in prison or death for a crime the J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI knew for a fact they did not commit. Two men were still in prison decades later when Mueller fought against their release and refused to give the FBI evidence to Congress that would have exonerated them.

 

[marke]

Memo shows Trump lawyer's six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election​

A conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence that he could overturn the election results on January 6 when Congress counted the Electoral College votes by throwing out electors from seven states, according to the new book "Peril" from Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

The scheme put forward by controversial lawyer John Eastman was outlined in a two-page memo obtained by the authors for "Peril," and which was subsequently obtained by CNN. The memo, which has not previously been made public, provides new detail showing how Trump and his team tried to persuade Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the election results on January 6. . . .

The Eastman memo laid out a six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election for Trump, which included throwing out the results in seven states because they allegedly had competing electors. In fact, no state had actually put forward an alternate slate of electors -- there were merely Trump allies claiming without any authority to be electors.

Under Eastman's scheme, Pence would have declared Trump the winner with more Electoral College votes after the seven states were thrown out, at 232 votes to 222. Anticipating "howls" from Democrats protesting the overturning of the election, the memo proposes, Pence would instead say that no candidate had reached 270 votes in the Electoral College. That would throw the election to the House of Representatives, where each state would get one vote. Since Republicans controlled 26 state delegations, a majority could vote for Trump to win the election.

The plan was first proposed to Pence when Eastman was with Trump in the Oval Office on January 4, during one of Trump's attempts to convince Pence that he had the authority to stop the certification of the election.

"You really need to listen to John. He's a respected constitutional scholar. Hear him out," Trump said to Pence at that meeting, Woodward and Costa write in "Peril."

In the memo, Eastman went so far as to suggest Pence should take action without warning.

"The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission -- either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court," Eastman wrote. "The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind."

In the end, Pence didn't go along with Eastman's scheme, concluding that the Constitution did not give him any power beyond counting the Electoral College votes. He did his own consultations before January 6, according to the book, reaching out to former Vice President Dan Quayle and the Senate parliamentarian, who were both clear in telling him he had no authority beyond counting the votes. . . .

Lee was shocked by the claims the memo was making, since no state had considered, let alone put forward, any alternate slates of electors. "Lee's head was spinning," the authors write. "No such procedure existed in the Constitution, any law or past practice. Eastman had apparently drawn it out of thin air."

Many government officials were working feverishly to expose the democrat fraud that stole the election for Biden, but many more democrat lawyers and officials were working feverishly to keep the facts of the fraud from coming out by obstructing investigations.

 

[marke]

Trump said in recent days that he would cite executive privilege to thwart House select committee investigators seeking to compel his top aides to testify about 6 January and what he knew of plans to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win:

Trump plans to sue to keep Capitol attack records secret | First Thing

The former president hopes to block the release of White House records; plus, judge to rule on Britney Spears’ conservatorship

www.theguardian.com

Democrats are not interested in facts. Look how they refused to free Flynn even after a court order to do so. Flynn committed no crime but the lawless democrats did not care. Flynn was in the Trump administration and about to take full control of a position that would have made it hard for him not to discover the full extent of the Worse-than-Watergate Obama spying operation on Trump and they could not have that.

 

[marke]

What's he got to hide?

What have the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bidens, Adam Schiff, James Comey, Andrew Cuomo, Harvey Weinstein, Robert Mueller, Peter Strzok, Schiff's mysterious whistleblower, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, and hundreds more who have resisted subpoenas for evidence got to hide?

 

[marke]

"Ballot harvesting like mad"? You sounded pretty sane until that. So, your intelligence is hardly being insulted in relation is it?

There are likely millions of democrats who do not know that what they have done is called ballot harvesting and is illegal.

 

[marke]

Everyone knows he tried to overthrow a valid election, including his cult.

Everyone knows that democrat claims of conducting a pure election have never been proven by honest investigations into the facts and evidence democrats refuse to allow investigators access to.

 

[marke]

Valid election?! For shame! It's blatantly obvious that Trump won by 70 million votes that were somehow morphed into bamboo ballots and overturned by terminator type software etc etc...

You cannot prove the software was contaminated. Nobody can. Democrat elections officials mysteriously lost computer logs from voting machines and have not allowed investigators access to the voting machines themselves to forensically examine them for possible corruption.

 

[marke]

Yep. I gave Pence credit for that at the time, and although that's all I could give him considering his his obsequious years of gazing adoringly at Trump while Trump obliterated everything, it was the biggest thing Pence could've gotten right.

Millions of democrats welcomed Comey's exoneration of Hillary in spite of the evidence and Comey's condemnation of Trump in spite of the evidence. Of course the crooked democrat mobsters think everyone who covered up the voter fraud or enabled acceptance of their voter fraud was a hero.

 

[marke]

Actually no, what you posted was just a big word salad that didn't discredit Fiona Hill at all.

Fiona Hill was not a good person because she was in bed with the crooks who treasonously sought to overthrow the US government under the Trump administration.

 

[marke]

This is why Republicans are deathly afraid of mail-in ballots.

You should not be allowing yourself to propagate stupid democrat talking points. Good Americans do not oppose mail-in ballots where those ballots are accompanied by irrefutable evidence of validity. But tens of millions of Americans are opposed to the way democrat elections officials secreted in hundreds of thousands of unverifiable ballots for Biden in the dead of night after the election to make up for Biden's losses.

 

[marke]

Notice it's the girl saying it to the boy...

Here, I'll explain it for you.

Just like they need to "see crowds" to believe Biden got more votes than Trump, they need to "see voters" to believe voters can cast valid mail ballots. Some states have been voting exclusively by mail for years now, long before Covid. But Republicans want in-person voting only, so they can then create laws to make it harder for people in high-Democrat areas to vote in person.

Democrats oppose security measures that would give Americans confidence that their votes count and illegitimate votes do not count. Democrats continue to propagate the lie that voting securities are racist and unfair to black voters, which is stupid and dishonest. Immigration laws are not racist, laws against theft and violence are not racist, laws against resisting arrest are not racist, and voting security laws are not racist.

 

[marke]

I understand you're afraid of mail-in ballots.

Never mind that the fraudit in AZ turned up *surprise!* a Biden win.

Never mind that states have been running efficient mail-in ballot elections for years.

Never mind that *you* don't get to control how people come to their decisions. "vote before the final debates are held" reeks of desperation.

Tammany Hall-style crooked democrat politicians and elections officials have been running successful democrat voter fraud operations for decades. These crooks rely on the stupidity of the American public they know are easily persuaded to believe democrat lies and condemn truths the democrats claim are lies.

 

[marke]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1443390490649505794

Democrat politics has changed very little over many decades. Democrats are still racist, they are still anti-American, they are still anti-Constitution, they are still opposed to honest elections, and so forth.

 

[marke]

I'm sure you think you're above all that.



Would you rather I insult your willful ignorance? As I said, there are a number of states who run efficient mail-only elections.

As one of five states—along with Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, and Utah—that conduct elections entirely by mail-in voting, Washingtonians haven’t had to go to a physical polling place since at least 2011. (Each county opens a voting center prior to each primary, special election, and general election, according to the Secretary of State.) Washington was the second state in the country to go all-in on mail-in voting, following the first state, Oregon, which enacted its law in 2000.

California is the latest addition.



One example:

Texas closes hundreds of polling sites, making it harder for minorities to vote​

Guardian analysis finds that places where black and Latino population is growing by the largest numbers experienced the majority of closures and could benefit Republicans

Last year, Texas led the US south in an unenviable statistic: closing down the most polling stations, making it more difficult for people to vote and arguably benefiting Republicans.

A report by civil rights group The Leadership Conference Education Fund found that 750 polls had been closed statewide since 2012.

Long considered a Republican bastion, changing racial demographics in the state have caused leading Democrats to recast Texas as a potential swing state. Texas Democratic party official Manny Garcia has called it “the biggest battleground state in the country”.

The closures could exacerbate Texas’s already chronically low voter turnout rates, to the advantage of incumbent Republicans. Ongoing research by University of Houston political scientists Jeronimo Cortina and Brandon Rottinghaus indicates that people are less likely to vote if they have to travel farther to do so, and the effect is disproportionately greater for some groups of voters, such as Latinxs. . . .

A Guardian analysis based on that report confirms what many activists have suspected: the places where the black and Latinx population is growing by the largest numbers have experienced the vast majority of the state’s poll site closures.

The analysis finds that the 50 counties that gained the most Black and Latinx residents between 2012 and 2018 closed 542 polling sites, compared to just 34 closures in the 50 counties that have gained the fewest black and Latinx residents. This is despite the fact that the population in the former group of counties has risen by 2.5 million people, whereas in the latter category the total population has fallen by over 13,000. . . .

Democrats continue to promote hateful, racist, and ungodly false narratives for political purposes. They are making America bad for everyone, not just patriotic Americans.

 

[marke]

Uh, an election isn't won within the first few hours so don't be dense in turn. Might as well argue that someone in front in a hundred metres final has won before the finishing line beckons. He might have been in front when he stupidly claimed victory but he was far behind when all the results came in. Deal with it.

Ballot dumps for Biden in the middle of the night in the absence of poll watchers and without accompanying verifications of validity is what Americans find unacceptable, and they should.

 

[TomO]

There are likely millions of democrats who do not know that what they have done is called ballot harvesting and is illegal.

*Meh* ...It's a hard thing to pin down. Kind of like porn, ya know it when you see it. Like with bussing people to the polls, where does the line get drawn between performing a civic service and electioneering?...How far away you park the bus?

When is it ballot harvesting and when is your little club merely making sure Aunt Tillies nursing home friends or the denizens of the local homeless shelter are represented at the polls?
You get enough people working these angles & you don't really even need dead people.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There are likely millions of democrats who do not know that what they have done is called ballot harvesting and is illegal.

Same ole bunk...

 

[marke]

Same ole bunk...

Ballot harvesting is real and has been going on for decades. Even republicans have committed the crime that democrats are fighting like hell now to legalize.

What is ballot harvesting, where is it allowed and should you hand your ballot to a stranger?

With more voters expected to vote absentee than ever before because of the pandemic, there has been a renewed focus on the process of voting and how ballots reach their final destination.

www.cbsnews.com

Last week at the Republican convention, President Trump told a cautionary story about a program that may be unfamiliar to many voters.

"In North Carolina, you had a fine pastor. A fine man. And they got him on harvesting," Mr. Trump said. "They wanted to put him in jail. And now they want to make it all so that everybody can harvest."

What he was describing — ballot harvesting — involves a law that allows third parties to collect and deliver ballots in some states. Though he misstated the details, Mr. Trump was referring to the high-profile fraud case in North Carolina's 9th Congressional District in 2018. There, Republican operative McCrae Dowless was indicted for mishandling absentee ballots in an effort to sway the election for a pastor named Mark Harris. The election was overturned and Harris, who denied knowing what Dowless was doing, withdrew his candidacy.

 

[annabenedetti]

Ballot harvesting is real and has been going on for decades. Even republicans have committed the crime that democrats are fighting like hell now to legalize.

Democrats aren't 'fighting to legalize' altering votes and forging signatures.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ballot-harvesting-collection-absentee-voting-explained-rules/

McCrae Dowless was indicted for mishandling absentee ballots . . . . to fraudulently sign them . . . . North Carolina allows only a close relative or verified legal guardian to return the ballot, and a witness must sign the absentee ballot envelope.

More from your link:

North Carolina allows only a close relative or verified legal guardian to return the ballot, and a witness must sign the absentee ballot envelope.

Dowless (and his operatives) broke the law by not being close relatives or legal guardians, and by marking votes on the ballots and forging the signatures.

Also from your link:

26 states allow a voter to designate someone else to return their ballot for them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A dozen of those states limit the number of ballots that the designee can collect and return on behalf of voters. And 10 states allow the ballot to be returned by the voter's family member.

You're conflating returning a completed and signed ballot for a third party in a state where it's legal to do so - with the criminal act of altering votes and/or forging the signature.