Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

I need to get back to work. So take your time. I **** up sentences and punctuation when I post fast too.

I’ll prolly be back on late afternoon.

 

[KG1]

Bless your little heart.

Plenty of proof he was paid off, but you need to be smart enough to get it. I will simplify it for you, a book deal is by it very nature being paid to say something…

Blees your pea pick'n heart as well.

So he had a book deal in advance to say that he found no evidence in case Trump's campaign hired him to investigate evidence of voter fraud. Show your work that he had such a deal.

 

[Ingomike]

Blees your pea pick'n heart as well.

So he had a book deal in advance to say that he found no evidence in case Trump's campaign hired him to investigate evidence of voter fraud. Show your work that he had such a deal.

Is a book deal not being paid to say something? Why did you leave out that he is currently hawking a book“coming out on March 12.” in your original post? Is it not common knowledge that if one was just a fly that landed on Trump’s arm that a payment via book deal from the left is available to those that dish out dirt on all things Trump?

 

[KG1]

Apparently, there were two firms that the Trump campaign hired and they both reported their findings to the Trump campaign.

Second Trump-hired firm found 2020 fraud claims were ‘all false’

A second firm hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud in the 2020 election said all of Trump’s fraud claims were false, the firm’s founder told The Washington Post The Trump campaign hired…

thehill.com

A similar firm, Berkeley Research Group, was hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud claims. Like Simpatico, Berkeley did not find evidence of fraud or that the election was stolen.

So Sympatico was the second firm hired by the campaign that reported it found no widespread evidence of voter fraud."

It appears that his firm came to the same conclusion that the 1st one did. I suppose they both had book deals "to lie and or and were paid off." in exchange for their findings.

 

[Ingomike]

What? This does not make any sense. I’m talking about the language you used here. I don’t know what you’re saying. Please rephrase so I can figure out what you’re saying. Maybe throw in some punctuation.

Let’s be clear about what we’re both calling Kraken. I’m calling it that as shorthand to refer to all the incredible claims made about the election. Sidney Powell. The CIA thing. Etcetera.

Personally I believe this is information is the Kraken

Yes it was the data presumably proving election hacking/fraud.

you were so devastated it did not materialize that it made you butt hurt against any that reported its existence…

It seemed back then you too were hoping it true and when it did not materialize you went all full on hatred of those outlets that reported it possible. Like your GWP obsession…

 

[Ingomike]

Apparently, there were two firms that the Trump campaign hired and they both reported their findings to the Trump campaign.

Second Trump-hired firm found 2020 fraud claims were ‘all false’

A second firm hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud in the 2020 election said all of Trump’s fraud claims were false, the firm’s founder told The Washington Post The Trump campaign hired…

thehill.com

A similar firm, Berkeley Research Group, was hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud claims. Like Simpatico, Berkeley did not find evidence of fraud or that the election was stolen.

So Sympatico was the second firm hired by the campaign that reported it found no widespread evidence of voter fraud."

It appears that his firm came to the same conclusion that the 1st one did. I suppose they both had book deals "to lie and or and were paid off." in exchange for their findings.

Prosecutor at trial: Did you find any evidence the defendant was not guilty?

Policeman on the witness stand at trial: I found no evidence the defendant is not guilty.

Prosecutor: Then the defendant is definitely quilty.

It is ridiculous that this means anything and certainly not what is being implied. Like taking a car with a problem to a mechanic and since the mechanic cannot find the problem saying no problem exists. Nope, just proof the mechanic couldn’t find the problem.

 

[jamil]

Bless your little heart.

Plenty of proof he was paid off, but you need to be smart enough to get it. I will simplify it for you, a book deal is by it very nature being paid to say something…

Plenty of proof he was paid off? Okay. I’ll listen. But, lots of people write books. But if it’s in terms if a conflict of interest that would tend to go against his credibility rather than evidence of being paid off.

 

[KG1]

Prosecutor at trial: Did you find any evidence the defendant was not guilty?

Policeman on the witness stand at trial: I found no evidence the defendant is not guilty.

Prosecutor: Then the defendant is definitely quilty.

It is ridiculous that this means anything and certainly not what is being implied. Like taking a car with a problem to a mechanic and since the mechanic cannot find the problem saying no problem exists. Nope, just proof the mechanic couldn’t find the problem.

Trump's legal team: Guess we will not be putting the two firms on the stand that we hired who both came to similar findings Independant of each other neither of whom could corroborate our claims of fraud on a large scale at the end of their investigations.

Seems to me that what they accomplished was giving the prosecution two witnesses when what they should have done is drop their fraud claims based on the findings of both the companies that specialize in data and analysis who could not corroborate.

As a matter of fact, there is nowhere that I am aware until just recently that the Trump campaign hired not one but two firms to try and corroborate with their claims of voter fraud. Trump's campaign certainly didn't mention it that I am aware of. Possibly because they didn't get the corroboration they were seeking and didn't want the public to know about it.

The first that I had heard of it was in the first article that I recently came across in which the head of the company that was hired came out and said the Trump campaign had hired his firm and then spoke of their findings in the article, but the Trump campaign continued with their fraud claim anyway.

The Trump campaign was certainly not going to release the findings, so this is pretty much the only way the public was going to hear about it.

 

[foszoe]

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD THAT HAS ABSOLUTE PROOF.

We live in a world of narratives. This guy is selling a book deal. The last has shown us that book deals are notoriously crafted for sales not truth. It takes intelligence to navigate the world of narratives and those waiting on proof will not have what they are looking for until they are being herded onto the boxcars…

Exactly! I mean Trumpe wrote a book!

 

[KG1]

Plenty of proof he was paid off? Okay. I’ll listen. But, lots of people write books. But if it’s in terms if a conflict of interest that would tend to go against his credibility rather than evidence of being paid off.

I would say the conflict of interest would have been if the guy had a book deal first and then accepted the job of analyzing fraud data that the Trump campaign hired him to do.

He didn't need to do the Trump deal if he already had a book deal and there is no proof that he did at the time he took the job from the Trump campaign.

in his own words he said he had an obligation to the Trump campaign to find the evidence that would hold up in a court of law and he reported his findings to them after their investigation that he could not.

Following that he had no further obligation to them. So if he wanted to take a book deal to document all that, I am unaware of any confidentiality clause that prevented him from doing so. If there was I haven't heard of a cease and desist that was filed against him for a breach anyway.

Instead of taking the job he could've just done a paid analysis for the book publisher if they approached him first to write about their findings.

He could've done that without Trump's campaign hiring him. To me the book deal after the fact wasn't a conflict because the book deal is about their findings that they had already investigated and reported to the Trump campaign which they were trying to hide.

 

[jamil]

Yes it was the data presumably proving election hacking/fraud.



It seemed back then you too were hoping it true and when it did not materialize you went all full on hatred of those outlets that reported it possible. Like your GWP obsession…

I’m not obsessed with GWP. They’re just not credible. When I say CNN is not credible do you accuse me of being obsessed with them? Not that we would have that come up on INGO. No one cites CNN here. But a lot of Trumpers cite GWP here. Which is why you might see me picking on them more. I also picked on ‘trunews’. No one cites them anymore. Guess everyone figured out it’s mostly partisan ********.

 

[jamil]

Prosecutor at trial: Did you find any evidence the defendant was not guilty?

Policeman on the witness stand at trial: I found no evidence the defendant is not guilty.

Prosecutor: Then the defendant is definitely quilty.

It is ridiculous that this means anything and certainly not what is being implied. Like taking a car with a problem to a mechanic and since the mechanic cannot find the problem saying no problem exists. Nope, just proof the mechanic couldn’t find the problem.

That’s not the same thing. The case being made is that Trump knew the election wasn’t stolen but told his supporters it was. So these firms hired to find election fraud and not finding any, and they tell Trump that they didn’t find any, is evidence that he had been told by independent experts that they did not find any fraud.

That does not Prove Trump believed it. But it does go towards the idea that he was told by two independent firms that they did not find what Trump was hoping to find.

 

[KG1]

That’s not the same thing. The case being made is that Trump knew the election wasn’t stolen but told his supporters it was. So these firms hired to find election fraud and not finding any, and they tell Trump that they didn’t find any, is evidence that he had been told by independent experts that they did not find any fraud.

That does not Prove Trump believed it. But it does go towards the idea that he was told by two independent firms that they did not find what Trump was hoping to find.

Exactly this. The Trump campaign commissioned the first firm Berkeley Research Group to investigate vote fraud and when they didn't get the results that they wanted they buried that report and commissioned a second firm, Sympatico to do another investigation which ultimately came to a similar conclusion so that report was buried as well to keep them both from the public.

So now we have two separate independent reports commissioned by the Trump campaign that were buried, after which the Trump campaign continued on with their fraud claims knowing full well the two firms that they had separately commissioned could not corroborate with their claims.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Apparently, there were two firms that the Trump campaign hired and they both reported their findings to the Trump campaign.

Second Trump-hired firm found 2020 fraud claims were ‘all false’

A second firm hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud in the 2020 election said all of Trump’s fraud claims were false, the firm’s founder told The Washington Post The Trump campaign hired…

thehill.com

A similar firm, Berkeley Research Group, was hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud claims. Like Simpatico, Berkeley did not find evidence of fraud or that the election was stolen.

So Sympatico was the second firm hired by the campaign that reported it found no widespread evidence of voter fraud."

It appears that his firm came to the same conclusion that the 1st one did. I suppose they both had book deals "to lie and or and were paid off." in exchange for their findings.

But did they ask Ingo? It's pretty obvious where the problem lies on here.

 

[KG1]

I just wanted to add to my previous post that it's perfectly fine for them to want to get a 2nd opinion by commissioning another investigation, Wanting 2nd opinions happens all the time. No issue there.

Where the problem starts to materialize is after they received the second independent report that pretty much fell in line with the first report the Trump campaign basically said **** it, disregarded and buried both to keep it from the public and carried on with their fraud claims like neither even existed.

Now it can potentially come back to bite them in the backside if and when this evidence is presented in a court case against then.

I for one think this is an eye opining development unheard of here until I dared to post about it, and was basically maligned by one particular member for doing so.

I can understand why some here might want all this to be buried.as well.

Anyway, I've more than spoken my piece about it and defended myself so I'm intending to take a respite but that doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to engage further in the future if I'm maligned again. That **** just sticks in my craw..

 

[Ingomike]

I just wanted to add to my previous post that it's perfectly fine for them to want to get a 2nd opinion by commissioning another investigation, happens all the time. No issue there.

Where the problem starts to materialize is when they received the second independent report that pretty much fell in line with the first report the Trump campaign basically said **** it, disregarded and buried both to keep it from the public and carried on with their fraud claims like neither even existed.

Now it can potentially come back to bite them in the backside if and when this evidence is presented in a court case against then.

I for one think this is an eye opining development unheard of here until I dared to post about it, and was basically maligned by one particular member for doing so.

I can understand why some here might want all this to be buried.as well.

Anyway, I've more that spoken my piece about it and defended myself so I'm intending to take a respite but that doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to engage further in the future if I'm maligned again. That **** just sticks in my craw..

So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.

You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

So, just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.

You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…

What's an official position? They're investigators, who were paid… to
Investigate. They investigated and found nothing. Neither did anyone else. The whole legal team of back alley retards never presented any proof.

You still haven't posted a take with evidence of election fraud. Neither has Trump. He's told us he has it, but we just keep learning it didn't exist and he knew that. Theyre going to prove he acknowledged it and knew it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/13/trump-admission-election-aides-january-6-panel

 

[KLB]

So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.

You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…

So Trump and company hired people and aid them a lot of money to do a job that they weren't capable of doing? They did it not once, but twice. I don't think that is the defense you think it is.

 

[jamil]

So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.

You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…

Are you not posting the best perspective you can? Is it true that they’re fickle? Is it really fickle not to support liars?

Bug and I have gone round and round on this. He gets mad at me because I say I’ll vote for Trump but I hate that I have to. He thinks that because I admit I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee that I should just jump into lockstep with all the ardent Trump supporters. Calls me ABT. As if that’s insulting because I’d rather have a better candidate. Not just anyone. Better.

I’m not gonna pull fake blonde hair over my eyes to filter out the bad attributes. I’m not even overlooking his faults when I tap the checkbox next to his name on the ballot. I’m comparing them to the other guy and deciding between two bad choices. I’ll pick the one that’s least damaging to society.

But you think that’s fickle. Nah. Eyes wide open.

 

[KG1]

So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.

You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…

Ok Mike. You once again are postulating trying to fabricate scenarios to say anything is plausible to post the most positive perspective. I can play this game too.

It's also extremely plausible that Trump was well aware that there wasn't enough there, there to support his fraud claims and overturn the election. These were not the only sources telling him that. There were a number of State audits as well to examine if there was enough credible evidence to support Trump's claims of outcome determinative fraud to overturn the results. None of them did based on the findings of their audits.

I guess we'll see what kinda weight will be given to them as well as Trump when they testify on their analysis in a court of law.

Trump and his legal team will have to show that he had credible evidence his claims were true to rebut the evidence that it was not. We'll see who wins the evidentiary presentation. If Trump's legal team wins, then I will accept that.