Trumped

[St1ck]

8 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Also worth pointing out, again, that broad swaths of the American conservative voting base will not accept any election that their preferred candidates do not prevail in as legitimate. That’s pretty obvious.  It seems like this will be the case for the foreseeable future.  What that means? I don’t know.  Probably problematic.  Also, who cares.  Not my problem. 

sad

[Kotchman]

3 hours ago, St1ck said:

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

 

4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

 

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

 

b.A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); and

 

A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in

 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

 

Each of these conspiracies-which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud-targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election ("the federal government function").

Sounds a lot like the process that occurs every election cycle.  

[Kotchman]

9 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Also worth pointing out, again, that broad swaths of the American conservative voting base will not accept any election that their preferred candidates do not prevail in as legitimate. That’s pretty obvious.  It seems like this will be the case for the foreseeable future.  What that means? I don’t know.  Probably problematic.  Also, who cares.  Not my problem. 

Yes that’s where the whole resist movement started. So a President can’t explore constitutional arguments but the House can hold an impeachment hearing off of a report they knew to be false? 

[UndertheHalo]

7 minutes ago, Kotchman said:

Yes that’s where the whole resist movement started. So a President can’t explore constitutional arguments but the House can hold an impeachment hearing off of a report they knew to be false? 

Exploring constitutional arguments is a clever way of describing “making shit up” 

of course that’s how most all constitutional law works because the constitution is an extremely vague, shitty governing document.  Especially 300 odd years later.  But hey.  It’s what we’ve got.  If you wanna fuss over it go with god and have fun.  Fuckin dorks all over the political spectrum do exactly that.  So you might as well. 

[UndertheHalo]

23 minutes ago, St1ck said:

sad

Very sad even

[Kevin]

When you're 0 for your last 60 in court cases because you have no evidence you either concede you lost and try again later or you're batting clean up for the Angels these days.

Either one is preferable to going all Jose Guillen in the clubhouse. 

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, Kevin said:

When you're 0 for your last 60 in court cases because you have no evidence you either concede you lost and try again later or you're batting clean up for the Angels these days.

Either one is preferable to going all Jose Guillen in the clubhouse. 

Jose Guillen had a sweet swing tho. I don’t know what this means. I’m just mentioning it.  May not have anything to do with anything tbh. 

[Kevin]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Jose Guillen had a sweet swing tho. I don’t know what this means. I’m just mentioning it.  May not have anything to do with anything tbh. 

I'm not saying we beat the Red Sox in '04 but I felt a bit more competitive with him in left field than Jeff DaVanon and maybe have a shot to get one or two wins in the series. But we knew what we were getting ourselves into. Luckily Vlad destroyed everything in his path that year and that last week of the season. 

[UndertheHalo]

6 minutes ago, Kevin said:

I'm not saying we beat the Red Sox in '04 but I felt a bit more competitive with him in left field than Jeff DaVanon and maybe have a shot to get one or two wins in the series. But we knew what we were getting ourselves into. Luckily Vlad destroyed everything in his path that year and that last week of the season. 

Ya who can say. Was it the next year or 2 years later that they had the pierzkski incident? Anyway, more chapters in the annals of Angels baseball.

[Kevin]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

Ya who can say. Was it the next year or 2 years later that they had the pierzkski incident? Anyway, more chapters in the annals of Angels baseball.

2005. As much as the Angels had some weird shit happen those years, at least it happened in the playoffs or leading up to it. Now they just bean each other in the head during a botched double steal in a meaningless game in August. 

[Jason]

52 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Also worth pointing out, again, that broad swaths of the American conservative voting base will not accept any election that their preferred candidates do not prevail in as legitimate. That’s pretty obvious.  It seems like this will be the case for the foreseeable future.  What that means? I don’t know.  Probably problematic.  Also, who cares.  Not my problem. 

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’ - The Washington Post

Cons didn't start this nonsense

[UndertheHalo]

5 minutes ago, Kevin said:

2005. As much as the Angels had some weird shit happen those years, at least it happened in the playoffs or leading up to it. Now they just bean each other in the head during a botched double steal in a meaningless game in August. 

We hates it

[Taylor]

36 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Exploring constitutional arguments is a clever way of describing “making shit up” 

of course that’s how most all constitutional law works because the constitution is an extremely vague, shitty governing document.  Especially 300 odd years later.  But hey.  It’s what we’ve got.  If you wanna fuss over it go with god and have fun.  Fuckin dorks all over the political spectrum do exactly that.  So you might as well. 

It's cute how conservatives believe there is a true literal reading of a document created by old farts in the 1700s.

[UndertheHalo]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’ - The Washington Post

Cons didn't start this nonsense

Ok.  I think this is a bit silly but I will accept that you earnestly believe this is exactly the same.  Surely you can acknowledge that it’s gone, far, far, farther by now than even the most lunatic libtard resistance warrior ever took it. 

[UndertheHalo]

I would like to remind everyone that the Trump created the beautiful vaccine

[cals]

13 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ok.  I think this is a bit silly but I will accept that you earnestly believe this is exactly the same.  Surely you can acknowledge that it’s gone, far, far, farther by now than even the most lunatic libtard resistance warrior ever took it. 

Be nice to Jason. He's legit stupid.

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ok.  I think this is a bit silly but I will accept that you earnestly believe this is exactly the same.  Surely you can acknowledge that it’s gone, far, far, farther by now than even the most lunatic libtard resistance warrior ever took it. 

Of course it has and shit is going to be crazy moving forward, from both sides. 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, cals said:

Be nice to Jason. He's legit stupid.

 

[UndertheHalo]

19 minutes ago, Taylor said:

It's cute how conservatives believe there is a true literal reading of a document created by old farts in the 1700s.

to be fair a bunch of the libtards beat off to The constitution as well.  
 

im reminded of that that one Pakistani guy who had the troop son that died pulling the pocket constitution out of his blazer and everyone weeping about how powerful it was at the hilDawg convention.  

[UndertheHalo]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

Of course it has and shit is going to be crazy moving forward, from both sides. 

Libtard Jan 6th is gonna rock

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

to be fair a bunch of the libtards beat off to The constitution as well.  
 

im reminded of that that one Pakistani guy who had the troop son that died pulling the pocket constitution out of his blazer and everyone weeping about how powerful it was at the hilDawg convention.  

We need to bring back the jerkoff emoji.

[St1ck]

Just now, Taylor said:

We need to bring back the jerkoff emoji.

 

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, St1ck said:

 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Libtard Jan 6th is gonna rock

They have plenty of violent riots and cities they burned for nonsense they made up in their heads.   

[St1ck]

6 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

to be fair a bunch of the libtards beat off to The constitution as well.  
 

im reminded of that that one Pakistani guy who had the troop son that died pulling the pocket constitution out of his blazer and everyone weeping about how powerful it was at the hilDawg convention.  

You know what's better than a pocket Constitution?