Trump only has to prove the election was rigged if he expects the results to be overturned. Otherwise, he is not obligated to prove anything. His beliefs are his beliefs. Is that clear enough for you?
and you most like bought into his bs.
I have posted multiple times including today that I believe the election was rigged, though not quite in the manner that Trump believes. My belief is that the mad covid 19 pandemic porn rush to unsecure mass mailout balloting qualifies as rigging the election. I have no faith in the results in those states. I do not need to provde a link for that. Other then that, yes, I believe fraud of the type Trump accused, occurred at some level, just not at a proven level enough to overturn the results.
So primarily, you are enraged that he did not accept the results of the election. So be it. However his beliefs are not a crime. You cannot legislate belief. As I have already stated, I think it's time for Trump to move on and think more about 2024 if he intends to run. It's also time for the democrats to move on. It's not really about Trump. They are more concerned that nearly half the population also harbors some doubts about the 2020 election.
When you think of the term "rigged" regarding the 2020 election or any election, what would be examples of rigging?
I am not sure which part of" I believe the election was rigged differently then what Trump believes" you do not understand.
I am a Trump supporter, though actually more of a populist conservative movement supporter and I believe the election was rigged by the means I mentioned. And I would believe that no matter what Trump did or said. I just have no faith whatsoever in rushed unsecure mass mailout balloting. However the 2020 election is done and gone. I just want to feel assured that no future elections will be rigged.
And by "blown up" you mean proven.
But democrats are nothing if not persistent liars.
democrats are masters of the big lie - tell an outrageous lie - repeat it over and over, and some will start to believe it.
{Both Engel and Ornato are prepared to testify that Trump did not go for Engel's throat or attempt to seize the wheel, according to CNN. An unidentified Secret Service source added that Ornato denies telling Hutchinson that story.}
Ornato already met with Jan. 6 committee twice: Report
A Secret Service official who featured prominently in testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee on Tuesday has reportedly met with the panel twice this year.www.washingtonexaminer.com
But refuting the lie has no impact on the Reich
Repeating Hutchinson's perjury doesn't change reality.
9 Secret Service Agents have refuted her, all willing to testify under oath.
Not that it matters to the sycophants.
nope.
Libruls much overuse the temr "lied" to the point where it becomes meaningless. in any case, if you are that enraged of lies, you shoud be angry as Dementia Joey, Nasty Nancy and many other in your own party.
I have had this question for several years now.
Fair enough. Many assume that because I am a conservative and a Trump supporter that I must be a republican. I have not been since 1989.and use of "Libruls" is overused.
Funny. I am not a Democrat. Interesting how you believe when someone disagrees with you they must be a D.
I didn't say he broke the law by conceding, I said he should have conceded but instead pushed on and appears to have broken several laws:
Less than a month after 1/6/21 I created the OP in my sig. So far the committee has confirmed everything I said in there, and has refuted nothing. It didn't require "having it out for Trump" to arrive at these conclusions. Remember I voted for him in 2016. It required objectivity to see what was plainly obvious. If it wasn't obvious to you as well, and you too are being objective, then we must be operating with a vastly different set of facts.
You're right that it's not a crime, but I disagree that it doesn't need to be investigated. If those Republicans dishonestly or criminally helped Trump in any other way then the American people deserve to know that. And the committee isn't just looking for criminal behavior, they're also finding and reporting objectively immoral behavior for the court of public opinion regarding some of our elected officials and their fitness to serve.
Trump flushed 250 years of the peaceful transition of power down the toilet yet you're still wringing your hands about this. Why do you consider that more important?
The man repeatedly rejected the information and advice of his own people, and continued to believe a theory that he himself invented months before the election was even held. He's lost either his respect for the truth (if he ever had that lol) or his attachment to reality. And that doesn't even consider the crimes he appears to have committed, or the multiple examples of his inability to keep his temper in check. He's not fit to serve cheeseburgers, much less public office.
Considering that some of what he allegedly said and did (lunging at SS agent, grabbing steering wheel) turned out not to be true, hard to judge how much else was embellished.
Trump is not an establishment politician. He took a bull in a china shop approach to status quo politics in Washington. That is the secret to his success. As for "going rogue", that's merely projection.
That didn't turn out to be untrue. That can never happen unless a relevant person testifies under oath to dispute it. Short of that, it makes no sense to let Twitter hearsay override witness testimony under oath.
Yes, that's why I voted for him in 2016. We need someone like him who is not dishonest and unhinged. Agree?
He certainly went rogue on his stolen election beliefs, refusing over and over to listen to his own investigators that nothing was there and seeking out unqualified yes-men like Jeffery Clark to help spread known lies. Do you honestly think he wouldn't try to do something like that again?
Did you read it? Or perhaps I should ask can you read it?
Not at all considering what we know about members of his team told him about the election not being fraudulent. Despite this, he proceeded to find different avenues to get the results he wanted. That's certainly the going rogue scenario I was referring to, and could easily be replicated in any other scenario were he still in power. Mind you, he's still pushing the same narrative.
Let us know when they do.. Until then that's just hearsay too.
Using that logic I can just as easily say that the 1/6 committee is full of shit taking Huchisons second or third hand info as gospel rather then calling in the Secret Service agents in for direct first hand accounts. And the reports of the agents and driver disputing her account did not come from Twitter, it came from mainstream news sources. You are asking us to accept 2nd hand hearsay, but you are demanding that we don't accept second hand accounts of the agents saying: "Didn't happen."
The dishonesty aspect is projection. Much of the unhinged aspect is embellished. As for 2024, my vote will go to whichever candidate convinces me that the populist conservative movement continues. If it's Trump so be it. If it's Desantis, so be it. If it's Ted Cruz, so be it.
Do something like what again?
Going rogue would be refusing to hand over power to Dementia Joey and his team. Trump is entitled to his doubts. I would not have gone quite as far as he did to dispute the results and it's time for him to move on, however there is no law that says he has to believe a certain way.
He can believe what he wants, but if he is using those beliefs to circumvent the electoral process, then that's an entirely different matter. What he did was still going rogue because he pursued his belief about the election well beyond what is afforded to him by law and took action. I am not concerned about a president's beliefs so long as they know where their personal beliefs end and their responsibilities as leaders begin.