Re: Yes he did
Posted by mark194 on 2024-July-28 16:13:46, SundayIn reply to Re: Yes he did posted by monkeyLostInHead on 2024-July-28 14:51:07, Sunday
|
but it requires greater investigation. No it doesn't. Why do you say that? What evidence makes you think a greater investigation is necessary? As I understand it, despite the voter fraud claims not having evidence to support them, lawsuits were filed on the basis of them, and of the 30 that were heard based on their merit (as opposed to being dismissed), 29 lost in court because of the lack of evidence to support them (the one that won involved too few votes to impact the outcome). Im not sure why you think you saying "Barr looked into it and concluded nothing happened" would convince me of anything. Well, why would Barr lie about that? If there was actual widespread voter fraud against Trump, why wouldn't Barr want to investigate that? Saying that the election fraud claims were unsubstantiated cost him his job - why would he do that if there actually was evidence to substantiate them? So the dominion machines werent investigated, they just threw a counter lawsuit and nothing happened, as far as I can tell from that article. Ok, first of all, did you even read the passage you quoted? Because it says: Powell's attorneys, however, later admitted in a court filing defending her against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by Dominion that "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact." So Sidney Powell's own attorneys admitted that the claims about Dominion voting machines were bogus. Second, I don't know what you mean by "counter lawsuit". Fox News didn't counter-sue Dominion for anything. Dominion sued Fox News for defamation, and Fox News, because they knew they were completely fucked in the ass if it went to trial, settled for 787 million dollars. Do you still think that the claims about dominion voting machines require further investigation, when the network propagating them opted to settle for almost 800 million dollars rather than defend their veracity in court? No i didnt admit any such thing Oh, I guess I misunderstood you then: when I said "A mob breaking into the Capitol while the election results are being certified in order to get them overturned, however, is an insurrection," and you said in response, "And so we are back again to whether trump set the mob off and made them do what they did," that sounded like you were conceding that it was an insurrection. Are you actually saying that a mob breaking into the Capitol while the election results are being certified in order to get them overturned, is not an insurrection? Do what things? The things I just said. Saying "I don't fucking care that they have weapons, they're not here to hurt me", and waiting three hours to call off the mob. What do you make of Trump saying this and doing this? |
Follow ups: