Trump 2024 — The second term

[Ingomike]

I remember that being reported at the time. I don't see why there's a controversy about it after the fact other than it would tend to cast doubt on the "insurrection" narrative if the person they're accusing of doing the "insurrecting" asked for help to prevent such things. .

This is the problem of the old rope-a-dope, even if perpetrated by well the meaning.

The right reports on a leak.

The left denies, calls it unfounded speculation.

A year or so later the actual evidence the leak was based on or testimony comes out.

NOTHINGBURGER! Old news.

That is pretty much just what you did…

 

[KLB]

I suppose a sports team can have a sort of collective guilt to the extent that the individuals have failed as a team. Even then, on an individual basis, some team members could have done their jobs masterfully, some didn't, and the result is a team failure.

Or they just didn't have the talent

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

The whole recording of Trump and Raffensperger was illegal because it was recorded in Florida where recording requires two party consent. It is obvious Trump did not consent and it is believed neither did Raffensperger. That is wiretapping in my book if a third party records conversations of others. That also makes it inadmissible as evidence being illegally obtained.

Regardless of how it was obtained, the call happened. Pressuring a state official to swing an election is certainly not “America First” and will almost certainly be on the airwaves in Georgia ads this year.

 

[Ingomike]

Regardless of how it was obtained, the call happened. Pressuring a state official to swing an election is certainly not “America First” and will almost certainly be on the airwaves in Georgia ads this year.

That is not what happened in the call at all. The worst possible description of what was said and the context of it.

 

[Bugzilla]

Sounds likes an agenda I’d vote for.

Woke Influencer Describing "Terrifying" Things That Will Happen if President Trump Wins the White House Again Accidently Makes Epic Campaign Ad (Video) | The Gateway Pundit | by Margaret Flavin

A woke social media “influencer” is going viral.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[BugI02]

I remember that being reported at the time. I don't see why there's a controversy about it after the fact other than it would tend to cast doubt on the "insurrection" narrative if the person they're accusing of doing the "insurrecting" asked for help to prevent such things. .

That was part of the closed door testimony to the committee that Cheney was directly responsible for burying while claiming in the final report that there was no evidence to support Trump's claim that he offered the NG to the mayor of DC as a way to maintain order. It was reported at the time that Pelosi didn't like the idea, supposedly because of the 'optic', which is plausible, but given the bureau assets in the crowd rousing the 'rabble' and the sketchy pipe bomb narrative I would be more likely to believe that Pelosi was already in the thick of a plan to foment some kind of riot that could be blamed on Trump and used to tighten government's control of many aspects of civilian life

These people are the real insurrectionists, bent on destroying America as it always has been in furtherance of their plan to change us into something else. I doubt they're smart enough to really realize how it is likely to turn out and instead probably were intent on enriching themselves and gathering power in order to be in the cat-birds seat in the new order. They should all be forced to watch the Bezmenov interview over and over while languishing in their cells awaiting trial for treason

 

[DadSmith]

Lara Trump promises legal ballot harvesting to be part of new RNC strategy - Washington Examiner

Newly-elected Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump said it is time for the RNC to up its game and compete with more strategy against the Democrats, including encouraging legal ballot harvesting.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[jamil]

This is the problem of the old rope-a-dope, even if perpetrated by well the meaning.

The right reports on a leak.

The left denies, calls it unfounded speculation.

A year or so later the actual evidence the leak was based on or testimony comes out.

NOTHINGBURGER! Old news.

That is pretty much just what you did…

What? I didn’t even know they denied that help was requested. It was a mainstream publication that reported it.

 

[jamil]

That was part of the closed door testimony to the committee that Cheney was directly responsible for burying while claiming in the final report that there was no evidence to support Trump's claim that he offered the NG to the mayor of DC as a way to maintain order. It was reported at the time that Pelosi didn't like the idea, supposedly because of the 'optic', which is plausible, but given the bureau assets in the crowd rousing the 'rabble' and the sketchy pipe bomb narrative I would be more likely to believe that Pelosi was already in the thick of a plan to foment some kind of riot that could be blamed on Trump and used to tighten government's control of many aspects of civilian life

These people are the real insurrectionists, bent on destroying America as it always has been in furtherance of their plan to change us into something else. I doubt they're smart enough to really realize how it is likely to turn out and instead probably were intent on enriching themselves and gathering power in order to be in the cat-birds seat in the new order. They should all be forced to watch the Bezmenov interview over and over while languishing in their cells awaiting trial for treason

Not just pelosi. Both Pelosi and McConnell have jurisdiction over the Capitol. He was in on it.

 

[Ingomike]

What? I didn’t even know they denied that help was requested. It was a mainstream publication that reported it.

The committee led by Liz buried it and it now has been proved that Trump did seek to encourage the mayor to request troops for DC…

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

That is not what happened in the call at all. The worst possible description of what was said and the context of it.

What happened on that call?

 

[Ingomike]

What happened on that call?

He was trying to get Raffensliar to do the proper recounts with signature verifications and proper chain of custody documentation among other things. If just those two things alone are done Trump wins easily…

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

He was trying to get Raffensliar to do the proper recounts with signature verifications and proper chain of custody documentation among other things. If just those two things alone are done Trump wins easily…

Yeah. That's not how anyone, including others on the call, would describe that. His actions were undoubtedly "Trump First," not "America First."

 

[BugI02]

Yeah. That's not how anyone, including others on the call, would describe that. His actions were undoubtedly "Trump First," not "America First."

As opposed to Nikki, who is 'Boeing First' or maybe 'Lockheed-Martin First'

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

As opposed to Nikki, who is 'Boeing First' or maybe 'Lockheed-Martin First'

View attachment 339160

Nikki is irrelevant at this point. Throwing rocks based on dumbed-down talking points at suspended candidates is meaningless and doesn't change the point.

 

[jamil]

He was trying to get Raffensliar to do the proper recounts with signature verifications and proper chain of custody documentation among other things. If just those two things alone are done Trump wins easily…

It was mostly the "among other things", but yes. That is what the call was about. Kurt Hilbert said it best during the call, that the Trump team believed they had found just under 30K votes that were illigit, which is well over the margin of victory for Biden, and that all they needed were 11K. Of course Trump speaks like a 5th grader, so when he says it, it sounds plausibly more like he's asking for votes to be fabricated, if you leave out the context of where the votes would be found.

Yeah. That's not how anyone, including others on the call, would describe that.

You know, there is a way to find out what exactly was said. The voice recording and transcript of the entire call is out there. I listened to the call as I followed the transcript. What you won't hear in the >1 hour call is Trump pressuring the GA officials on the call to fabricate votes. He did pressure them to review the information team Trump had collected on votes they thought were not legit and find 11 thousand votes.

Fair warning. It is an idiotic conversation. Everyone on the call except Hilbert is an moron; that includes team GA. Team Trump would have been way better off if Trump had STFU, and let Hilbert do all the talking. The call would have lasted maybe 10 minutes, and CNN wouldn't have found the gem they could take out of context to make it sound like Trump was pressuring GA officials to fabricate votes so he could win.

His actions were undoubtedly "Trump First," not "America First."

During the call Trump said several times that America is being harmed by the democrat's cheating. Whether or not "the steal" is real, is irrelevant. Trump, no doubt, believes it. Not that I think Trump is selflessly AF, there's nothing on the call that would suggest he was seflishly trying to goad GA into fabricating votes. Anyone on the call who claims he was is either a liar or a moron.

 

[KG1]

It was mostly the "among other things", but yes. That is what the call was about. Kurt Hilbert said it best during the call, that the Trump team believed they had found just under 30K votes that were illigit, which is well over the margin of victory for Biden, and that all they needed were 11K. Of course Trump speaks like a 5th grader, so when he says it, it sounds plausibly more like he's asking for votes to be fabricated, if you leave out the context of where the votes would be found.


You know, there is a way to find out what exactly was said. The voice recording and transcript of the entire call is out there. I listened to the call as I followed the transcript. What you won't hear in the >1 hour call is Trump pressuring the GA officials on the call to fabricate votes. He did pressure them to review the information team Trump had collected on votes they thought were not legit and find 11 thousand votes.

Fair warning. It is an idiotic conversation. Everyone on the call except Hilbert is an moron; that includes team GA. Team Trump would have been way better off if Trump had STFU, and let Hilbert do all the talking. The call would have lasted maybe 10 minutes, and CNN wouldn't have found the gem they could take out of context to make it sound like Trump was pressuring GA officials to fabricate votes so he could win.

I've read the transcript as well and I think you have highlighted a key part involving Hilberts's participation. While Trump had laid out his entire case that there, were well over the 11k+ votes needed if it weren't for fraud, Hilbert suggests that he and Germany have a sit down and focus on just a few categories where they believe if their numbers are correct, it would give Trump the number of votes needed.

IMO Hilbert's proposal on behalf of Trump to have a sit down and compare numbers was not unreasonable and Germany was at least at first receptive to his proposal. Trump apparently endorsed that proposal while he was on the phone for both parties to get together coordinated by then Chief of Staff Meadows and work out the numbers to see whose numbers are accurate.

If one honestly takes the entire context of the conversation into account Trump nor any of his representation in the phone call ever asked anyone to manufacture any votes. They just wanted the necessary votes at least to be found which they believed were already out there and more based on the information that they had complied.

Here is the entire transcript.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

Here is the part of the transcript in the final 3rd of the conversation that you have highlighted where Hilbert (Trump's representative) enters the conversation with his proposal to Germany (SOS representative.) There is more but this is Hilbert's proposal on what to focus on to get them there by singling out what they believed were illigit votes. Anyone can feel free to read it all for themselves.

Hilbert: Mr. President and Cleta, this is Kurt Hilbert, if I might interject for a moment. Um Ryan, I would like to suggest just four categories that have already been mentioned by the president that have actually hard numbers of 24,149 votes that were counted illegally. That in and of itself is sufficient to change the results or place the outcome in doubt. We would like to sit down with your office and we can do it through purposes of compromise and just like this phone call, just to deal with that limited category of votes. And if you are able to establish that our numbers are not accurate, then fine. However, we believe that they are accurate. We’ve had now three to four separate experts looking at these numbers.

Trump: Certified accountants looked at them.

Hilbert: Correct. And this is just based on USPS data and your own secretary of state’s data. So that’s what we would entreat and ask you to do, to sit down with us in a compromise and settlements proceeding and actually go through the registered voter IDs and registrations. And if you can convince us that that 24,149 is inaccurate, then fine. But we tend to believe that is, you know, obviously more than 11,779. That’s sufficient to change the results entirely in of itself. So what would you say to that, Mr. Germany?

Germany: Kurt, um I’m happy to get with our lawyers and we’ll set that up. That number is not accurate. And I think we can show you, for all the ones we’ve looked at, why it’s not. And so if that would be helpful, I’m happy to get with our lawyers and set that up with you guys.

Trump: Well, let me ask you, Kurt, you think that is an accurate number. That was based on the information given to you by the secretary of state’s department, right?

Hilbert: That is correct. That information is the minimum most conservative data based upon the USPS data and the secretary of state’s office data that has been made publicly available. We do not have the internal numbers from the secretary of state. Yet, we have asked for it six times. I sent a letter over to Mr… several times requesting this information, and it’s been rebuffed every single time. So it stands to reason that if the information is not forthcoming, there’s something to hide. That’s the problem that we have.

Germany: Well, that’s not the case sir. There are things that you guys are entitled to get. And there’s things that under the law, we are not allowed to give out.

 

[jamil]

1. No. You have to suffer through the audio. It's not fair that you merely read it.

2. TL;DR



Seriously, I did read your post. Every word. See, forcing yourself to suffer through the audio of morons talking boosts patience. It's like working out. No pain. No gain.

 

[jamil]

Having heard and read the transcript, It's undeniable that Trump did not pressure GA officials on that call to fabricate votes. Anyone on that call who alleges otherwise is either a liar or a moron.

So addressing anyone reading this who who believes the media portrayal that Trump tried to bully GA into fabricating votes, what this means is that you were lied to. So @HKFaninCarmel, @SheepDog4Life, whoever else was convinced that Trump tried to get GA officials to fabricate votes, you were suckered. You fell for it.

How does that make you feel? Does it **** you off? It should. You should never trust that source of information again. You got swindled. You traded one of your most important possessions, your belief, for a sack of worthless ****. I don't care whose side the source is on. It should make you angry that someone you trusted enough to believe, suckered you like that. It's why I don't trust GWP. Fool me once...

Don't trust media. Any of it.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Having heard and read the transcript, It's undeniable that Trump did not pressure GA officials on that call to fabricate votes. Anyone on that call who alleges otherwise is either a liar or a moron.

So addressing anyone reading this who who believes the media portrayal that Trump tried to bully GA into fabricating votes, what this means is that you were lied to. So @HKFaninCarmel, @SheepDog4Life, whoever else was convinced that Trump tried to get GA officials to fabricate votes, you were suckered. You fell for it.

How does that make you feel? Does it **** you off? It should. You should never trust that source of information again. You got swindled. You traded one of your most important possessions, your belief, for a sack of worthless ****. I don't care whose side the source is on. It should make you angry that someone you trusted enough to believe, suckered you like that. It's why I don't trust GWP. Fool me once...

Don't trust media. Any of it.

Well, considering that I didn't fall for anything or get suckered- this is a nutty post.

I hear a crybaby loser making wrong claims about Kemp and others. He never provided any evidence to support any of the wild claims. When I coach baseball, and a kid strikes out watching Strike 3, they turn to me, get angry, and raise their hands in the air- then I tell them it was a strike, the ump was right, and to get their butts back in the dugout, and we'll get em next time- that's what this looks like. A grown man throwing a fit and the emotional parents supporting the kids. You guys look like the sucker parents thinking their beloved baby got screwed when he didn't.

The part about Kemp being underwater and winning because of him is hilarious, given what we learned in 2022 when Kemp smoked the Trump challenger and won big, while Trump's endorsed Senate got beat by the exact same voters. If you think Georgia swing voters forgot about this, you're nuts.