The New Election Interference Strategy

[bpj]

60 minutes broadcast a blatant Trump hit piece tonight. I am sure they are planning on producing one on Biden at some point this year as well because you know they are just unbiased media. Oh wait, Biden is perfect so I guess they wouldn't be able to come up with anything on him.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin- ... ranscript/

The bias is so blatantly obvious at this point its almost surprising that the libiots can't see it.

Somehow they just keep eating up whatever CNN and MSNBC tell them.

"The sky is falling, Trumps going to lose all his businesses and have to pay $360M!"

Bunch of clowns.

[D-train]

Watching the arrogant self righteous Vanderbilt heir Anderson Cooper interview the RINO you got this impression that he felt like he was single handily saving democracy with this biased "cutting edge" journalistic investigative expose. That he was going to be the HERO that finally took Trump down and kept Biden in office for 4 more years. Of course with a net worth of $50M and in his elitist high society tower he feels no impact from any of the destruction of the country that Biden has caused the past 3+ years that middle America has had to contend with.

Makes me want to puke.

[gil]

60 minutes broadcast a blatant Trump hit piece tonight. I am sure they are planning on producing one on Biden at some point this year as well because you know they are just unbiased media. Oh wait, Biden is perfect so I guess they wouldn't be able to come up with anything on him.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin- ... ranscript/

dt, why do you call this a "hit piece"? (This is the interview with Andrew Hitt, right?) I didn't watch it but I've read about it. HItt was chair of the Wisconsin Republican Party and said that he worked really hard to get Trump elected. Then he fell into supporting what has become known as the "fake elector" scheme (i.e., even thought Biden electors were legitimate - because Biden won Wisconsin - Hitt and others tried to get electors pledged to Trump in instead). Is there something biased about this? If there was a "fake elector" scheme, I see no reason we should be talking about it.

And why do you call him a RINO? Is there any reason other than that he is saying that he was wrong to be part of the "fake elector" thing?

I hope you take this as a genuine question. I'd like to know what you think. Thanks.

[gil]

Those aren't "facts". They're excerpts.

Sounds like a whole lot of explaining and not much providing the sources you quoted.

Wonder why....

Does the court filing convince you that what Donn said is accurate, i.e., factual?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.84.2.pdf

And Rudy G. didn't testify because ...? I think this document is in effect his testimony. In effect, "I said what they claimed I said" and "It was defamatory."

Sounds like he wanted the case to go away while maintaining his ability to appeal and dispute the actual case.

Screenshot_20240215_185629_Drive.jpg

The judge in the case told him he would be held in contempt if he said something she didn't like,

If there is evidence that she indeed told him this, she should be removed, impeached, disbarred ... whatever ... as quickly as possible. *IF* she indeed told him this.

so he decided to hold off with his testimony until the appeal with a judge that's not a lib loon.

Somebody else may have made this point earlier ... hell, maybe even me: When you appeal, as far as I know, you can't say "Here is the evidence that I have been holding back that I did not present at trial. You have to say that something was wrong in the first trial, not have some new revelations to spring on the appeals court.

Again, if the judge kept Giuliani from bringing up evidence, that is INCREDIBLY bad, and she should be punished to the max. But I'll wait for proof. Thanks.

[D-train]

60 minutes broadcast a blatant Trump hit piece tonight. I am sure they are planning on producing one on Biden at some point this year as well because you know they are just unbiased media. Oh wait, Biden is perfect so I guess they wouldn't be able to come up with anything on him.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin- ... ranscript/

dt, why do you call this a "hit piece"? (This is the interview with Andrew Hitt, right?) I didn't watch it but I've read about it. HItt was chair of the Wisconsin Republican Party and said that he worked really hard to get Trump elected. Then he fell into supporting what has become known as the "fake elector" scheme (i.e., even thought Biden electors were legitimate - because Biden won Wisconsin - Hitt and others tried to get electors pledged to Trump in instead). Is there something biased about this? If there was a "fake elector" scheme, I see no reason we should be talking about it.

And why do you call him a RINO? Is there any reason other than that he is saying that he was wrong to be part of the "fake elector" thing?

I hope you take this as a genuine question. I'd like to know what you think. Thanks.

I get what you are saying, I really do but my question would be about him saying he went along with it because he thought he would be in danger if he didn't. So now he goes on National TV saying Trump shouldn't be POTUS because of it. Why now, what was his motivation to now put himself in danger. Why didn't AC follow up and ask him who should be POTUS? Is he voting for Biden now??? Also, there was no direct link to Trump and this scheme. Seems his attorney hatched the plan.

But more importantly do you think they will take the opportunity to do a piece on the Hunter Biden pay for play scandal in which there are mountains of evidence??? Rhetorical question.

[gil]

60 minutes broadcast a blatant Trump hit piece tonight. I am sure they are planning on producing one on Biden at some point this year as well because you know they are just unbiased media. Oh wait, Biden is perfect so I guess they wouldn't be able to come up with anything on him.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin- ... ranscript/

dt, why do you call this a "hit piece"? (This is the interview with Andrew Hitt, right?) I didn't watch it but I've read about it. HItt was chair of the Wisconsin Republican Party and said that he worked really hard to get Trump elected. Then he fell into supporting what has become known as the "fake elector" scheme (i.e., even thought Biden electors were legitimate - because Biden won Wisconsin - Hitt and others tried to get electors pledged to Trump in instead). Is there something biased about this? If there was a "fake elector" scheme, I see no reason we should be talking about it.

And why do you call him a RINO? Is there any reason other than that he is saying that he was wrong to be part of the "fake elector" thing?

I hope you take this as a genuine question. I'd like to know what you think. Thanks.

I get what you are saying, I really do but my question would be about him saying he went along with it because he thought he would be in danger if he didn't. So now he goes on National TV saying Trump shouldn't be POTUS because of it. Why now, what was his motivation to now put himself in danger. Why didn't AC follow up and ask him who should be POTUS? Is he voting for Biden now??? Also, there was no direct link to Trump and this scheme. Seems his attorney hatched the plan.

But more importantly do you think they will take the opportunity to do a piece on the Hunter Biden pay for play scandal in which there are mountains of evidence??? Rhetorical question.

My guess of why Hitt is doing it now is that he and the other "fake electors" in Wisconsin entered into a settlement in which they did not admit wrongdoing, but I suspect he is trying to rehabilitate his reputation. He says now that Biden legitimately won the 2020 election, and that he went along with the plan to assemble electors pledged for Trump because there was pending litigation regarding the election results, and they (at least he) wanted to be ready with a state of Republican electors if the suit was successful and Wisconsin named Trump the winner. He said in the interview that his fear was based on the possibility that "the whole reason Trump loses Wisconsin is because of me." Now he's just one out of tens of millions of people saying Trump shouldn't be president.

But why would 60 Minutes do this story? Again, my guess, is because there is a pattern of something similar that happened in 7 states after the 2020 election: i.e., attorneys associated with Trump (Chesebro and someone whose name I forget) worked on assembling "fake electors" based on local (i.e., in that state) allegations of fraud or election errors. Hitt said he didn't know something similar was being done in the other states.

No, that's a good question. I know there are mountains of allegations, and I'm happy to see what the evidence is. If President Biden was involved in pay for play, he ought to be thrown out on his ass.

[bpj]

Does the court filing convince you that what Donn said is accurate, i.e., factual?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.84.2.pdf

And Rudy G. didn't testify because ...? I think this document is in effect his testimony. In effect, "I said what they claimed I said" and "It was defamatory."

Sounds like he wanted the case to go away while maintaining his ability to appeal and dispute the actual case.

Screenshot_20240215_185629_Drive.jpg

The judge in the case told him he would be held in contempt if he said something she didn't like,

If there is evidence that she indeed told him this, she should be removed, impeached, disbarred ... whatever ... as quickly as possible. *IF* she indeed told him this.

so he decided to hold off with his testimony until the appeal with a judge that's not a lib loon.

Somebody else may have made this point earlier ... hell, maybe even me: When you appeal, as far as I know, you can't say "Here is the evidence that I have been holding back that I did not present at trial. You have to say that something was wrong in the first trial, not have some new revelations to spring on the appeals court.

Again, if the judge kept Giuliani from bringing up evidence, that is INCREDIBLY bad, and she should be punished to the max. But I'll wait for proof. Thanks.

People jumped to conclusions in the Trevor Bauer case also. Waiting for proof seems like a good idea because none of us have any idea.

Giuliani said he provided thousands of documents as evidence to the court. What he didn't provide was financial documents because he wanted a protective order. I don't know what that really means, maybe so they couldn't share the info.

At that point, since he withheld the financial docs, the judge decided he was guilty, and wouldn't allow the evidence in court, including the videos of the women pulling the suitcases from under the tables and running the ballots through the machines 3-4 times each.

If that's true, he did present the evidence to the court, but she had already decided he was guilty. It wasn't a trial by jury. The judge decided guilt. Then the jury was brought in to decide how much he would pay.

If we hadn't watched some of these J6 cases and Trumps cases going the same way, I'd think it was crazy too.

But there isn't even a damaged party in Trumps recent $350M case. Elon Musk made the great point of, since there were no parties damaged by Trumps supposed fraud, who would even get the money?

Remember, the banks were witnesses FOR Trump in the case, they got their money back on the loan, plus interest, and were happy.

These trials seem like headline grabbers to get the lib voters all riled up, and then when they're overturned it'll hardly make the news, they already got what they wanted, headlines.

Anyways, yeah, we'll see what happens.

Giuliani explains here:
https://rumble.com/v42ggkd-rudy-giulian ... trial.html

[Seattle or Bust]

Sounds like he wanted the case to go away while maintaining his ability to appeal and dispute the actual case.

Screenshot_20240215_185629_Drive.jpg

The judge in the case told him he would be held in contempt if he said something she didn't like,

If there is evidence that she indeed told him this, she should be removed, impeached, disbarred ... whatever ... as quickly as possible. *IF* she indeed told him this.

so he decided to hold off with his testimony until the appeal with a judge that's not a lib loon.

Somebody else may have made this point earlier ... hell, maybe even me: When you appeal, as far as I know, you can't say "Here is the evidence that I have been holding back that I did not present at trial. You have to say that something was wrong in the first trial, not have some new revelations to spring on the appeals court.

Again, if the judge kept Giuliani from bringing up evidence, that is INCREDIBLY bad, and she should be punished to the max. But I'll wait for proof. Thanks.

People jumped to conclusions in the Trevor Bauer case also. Waiting for proof seems like a good idea because none of us have any idea.

Giuliani said he provided thousands of documents as evidence to the court. What he didn't provide was financial documents because he wanted a protective order. I don't know what that really means, maybe so they couldn't share the info.

At that point, since he withheld the financial docs, the judge decided he was guilty, and wouldn't allow the evidence in court, including the videos of the women pulling the suitcases from under the tables and running the ballots through the machines 3-4 times each.

If that's true, he did present the evidence to the court, but she had already decided he was guilty. It wasn't a trial by jury. The judge decided guilt. Then the jury was brought in to decide how much he would pay.

If we hadn't watched some of these J6 cases and Trumps cases going the same way, I'd think it was crazy too.

But there isn't even a damaged party in Trumps recent $350M case. Elon Musk made the great point of, since there were no parties damaged by Trumps supposed fraud, who would even get the money?

Remember, the banks were witnesses FOR Trump in the case, they got their money back on the loan, plus interest, and were happy.

These trials seem like headline grabbers to get the lib voters all riled up, and then when they're overturned it'll hardly make the news, they already got what they wanted, headlines.

Anyways, yeah, we'll see what happens.

Giuliani explains here:
https://rumble.com/v42ggkd-rudy-giulian ... trial.html

Even if there are no directly damaged parties, seems odd to hope that someone who has inflated their assets to save hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and coax banks into giving the company loans/insurance just goes scott free... While nepotism and favors are handed out to politicians all the time (and it's not right), Trump's purposeful infractions are pretty f'n egregious. If you or I did things this way we'd be in prison.

Seems odd that a guy is a favorite to run for president when he's barred from engaging in business in New York moving forward due to fraud. Not to mention the hundreds of contractors that have come forward and said they were never paid for work done on his properties. 3,500 lawsuits... many of which from ordinary Americans who were stiffed by Trump. Many of these lawsuits getting tied up in court for years until small businesses can no longer keep up with the legal bills.

Isn't the whole point regarding "draining the swamp" making it so we're rid of people who are so rich that the rules don't apply to them? That everyone plays under the same rules? Not saying Dems are any better, but Trump is in the top 1% of the swamp. People like him should be in prison... no matter their political affiliation.

[bpj]

If there is evidence that she indeed told him this, she should be removed, impeached, disbarred ... whatever ... as quickly as possible. *IF* she indeed told him this.


Somebody else may have made this point earlier ... hell, maybe even me: When you appeal, as far as I know, you can't say "Here is the evidence that I have been holding back that I did not present at trial. You have to say that something was wrong in the first trial, not have some new revelations to spring on the appeals court.

Again, if the judge kept Giuliani from bringing up evidence, that is INCREDIBLY bad, and she should be punished to the max. But I'll wait for proof. Thanks.

People jumped to conclusions in the Trevor Bauer case also. Waiting for proof seems like a good idea because none of us have any idea.

Giuliani said he provided thousands of documents as evidence to the court. What he didn't provide was financial documents because he wanted a protective order. I don't know what that really means, maybe so they couldn't share the info.

At that point, since he withheld the financial docs, the judge decided he was guilty, and wouldn't allow the evidence in court, including the videos of the women pulling the suitcases from under the tables and running the ballots through the machines 3-4 times each.

If that's true, he did present the evidence to the court, but she had already decided he was guilty. It wasn't a trial by jury. The judge decided guilt. Then the jury was brought in to decide how much he would pay.

If we hadn't watched some of these J6 cases and Trumps cases going the same way, I'd think it was crazy too.

But there isn't even a damaged party in Trumps recent $350M case. Elon Musk made the great point of, since there were no parties damaged by Trumps supposed fraud, who would even get the money?

Remember, the banks were witnesses FOR Trump in the case, they got their money back on the loan, plus interest, and were happy.

These trials seem like headline grabbers to get the lib voters all riled up, and then when they're overturned it'll hardly make the news, they already got what they wanted, headlines.

Anyways, yeah, we'll see what happens.

Giuliani explains here:
https://rumble.com/v42ggkd-rudy-giulian ... trial.html

Even if there are no directly damaged parties, seems odd to hope that someone who has inflated their assets to save hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and coax banks into giving the company loans/insurance just goes scott free... While nepotism and favors are handed out to politicians all the time (and it's not right), Trump's purposeful infractions are pretty f'n egregious. If you or I did things this way we'd be in prison.

Seems odd that a guy is a favorite to run for president when he's barred from engaging in business in New York moving forward due to fraud. Not to mention the hundreds of contractors that have come forward and said they were never paid for work done on his properties. 3,500 lawsuits... many of which from ordinary Americans who were stiffed by Trump. Many of these lawsuits getting tied up in court for years until small businesses can no longer keep up with the legal bills.

Isn't the whole point regarding "draining the swamp" making it so we're rid of people who are so rich that the rules don't apply to them? That everyone plays under the same rules? Not saying Dems are any better, but Trump is in the top 1% of the swamp. People like him should be in prison... no matter their political affiliation.

You sure you want to hop back to the politics forum you Subaru driving hippie??

How did he save millions in taxes by saying his properties were worth more than the judge thought they were worth? That one's new to me, and sounds counterintuitive. Wouldn't you pay more taxes if you inflate the value?

When you apply for a loan, you list your assets and your estimate of their value. Then the bank does their own due diligence, and if the value is there, they'll make the loan.

The banks testified on his behalf.

The first couple minutes of this video summarizes the situation pretty well:
.https://youtu.be/3lngHZFZkEw?si=w4J0g7oQFiEBBHPW

[Seattle or Bust]

People jumped to conclusions in the Trevor Bauer case also. Waiting for proof seems like a good idea because none of us have any idea.

Giuliani said he provided thousands of documents as evidence to the court. What he didn't provide was financial documents because he wanted a protective order. I don't know what that really means, maybe so they couldn't share the info.

At that point, since he withheld the financial docs, the judge decided he was guilty, and wouldn't allow the evidence in court, including the videos of the women pulling the suitcases from under the tables and running the ballots through the machines 3-4 times each.

If that's true, he did present the evidence to the court, but she had already decided he was guilty. It wasn't a trial by jury. The judge decided guilt. Then the jury was brought in to decide how much he would pay.

If we hadn't watched some of these J6 cases and Trumps cases going the same way, I'd think it was crazy too.

But there isn't even a damaged party in Trumps recent $350M case. Elon Musk made the great point of, since there were no parties damaged by Trumps supposed fraud, who would even get the money?

Remember, the banks were witnesses FOR Trump in the case, they got their money back on the loan, plus interest, and were happy.

These trials seem like headline grabbers to get the lib voters all riled up, and then when they're overturned it'll hardly make the news, they already got what they wanted, headlines.

Anyways, yeah, we'll see what happens.

Giuliani explains here:
https://rumble.com/v42ggkd-rudy-giulian ... trial.html

Even if there are no directly damaged parties, seems odd to hope that someone who has inflated their assets to save hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and coax banks into giving the company loans/insurance just goes scott free... While nepotism and favors are handed out to politicians all the time (and it's not right), Trump's purposeful infractions are pretty f'n egregious. If you or I did things this way we'd be in prison.

Seems odd that a guy is a favorite to run for president when he's barred from engaging in business in New York moving forward due to fraud. Not to mention the hundreds of contractors that have come forward and said they were never paid for work done on his properties. 3,500 lawsuits... many of which from ordinary Americans who were stiffed by Trump. Many of these lawsuits getting tied up in court for years until small businesses can no longer keep up with the legal bills.

Isn't the whole point regarding "draining the swamp" making it so we're rid of people who are so rich that the rules don't apply to them? That everyone plays under the same rules? Not saying Dems are any better, but Trump is in the top 1% of the swamp. People like him should be in prison... no matter their political affiliation.

You sure you want to hop back to the politics forum you Subaru driving hippie??

How did he save millions in taxes by saying his properties were worth more than the judge thought they were worth? That one's new to me, and sounds counterintuitive. Wouldn't you pay more taxes if you inflate the value?

When you apply for a loan, you list your assets and your estimate of their value. Then the bank does their own due diligence, and if the value is there, they'll make the loan.

The banks testified on his behalf.

The first couple minutes of this video summarizes the situation pretty well:
.https://youtu.be/3lngHZFZkEw?si=w4J0g7oQFiEBBHPW

I drive a Jeep and am probably the furthest thing from a hippie... well aside from I guess like a farmer or someone from small-town America.

I want the swamp drained as much as the next person. It sucks to work hard and have it mean very little in the face of really rich people constantly committing fraud and scamming their way to more millions. The swamp will never be drained with Trump at the helm. He is among the swampiest of the swamp. I want the rules to be the same for everyone... and if it takes a Republican to do that, great... but it won't be Trump.

Tim Pool's analysis isn't going to convince me that Trump is an angel who does business legitimately. Guy makes a lot of money grifting... what reason could he ever have for taking a particular viewpoint? $$$$$