Donald Trump Just Showed Why Reforming the Electoral Count Act Is Essential
By saying the quiet part loud, the former president should spur Congress into action.

Former President Donald Trump issued a statement on Sunday confirming that his efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election were…an attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.
In response to ongoing attempts to change key provisions of the Electoral Count Act, the law that governs the process by which Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College, Trump claimed that the reform effort itself is an indication of how close Republicans might have been to flipping the outcome in January 2021.
"If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?" Trump wrote. "Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Truly, this is one of the all-time greatest "saying the quiet part loud" moments. But there is a nugget of a valuable point in there.
Under the Electoral Count Act, the president of the Senate (which is the vice president, per the Constitution) is responsible for opening the envelopes containing the Electoral College's state-by-state vote tallies. The vice president's role in the process has always been assumed to be ceremonial, but the law does not explicitly say that. As Reason's Joe Lancaster explained last week, Trump and his acolytes "seized upon this vagueness when they tried to pressure then–Vice President Mike Pence to either decline to certify the results, or else simply pick a different slate of electors in enough swing states to tip the election to Trump."
The so-called "Eastman memo," drafted by John Eastman, an attorney on Trump's legal team, clearly lays out the steps for exploiting the key weakness in the Electoral Count Act. If the same party held the vice presidency and a majority of the state-by-state congressional delegations in the House—as Republicans did on January 6, 2020—then the Eastman memo is an effective road map for doing exactly what Trump now admits he was trying to do: get a sitting vice president to overturn the legitimate results of an election.
Fortunately, Pence didn't exercise that power. But it would be foolish to believe that partisan hacks—on either side—would not at least try to put this option on the table if the same circumstances are repeated in a future presidential election. That's why a fix to the Electoral Count Act is essential.
A bipartisan group of senators is trying to do exactly that, with at least six Democrats reportedly working with a group of Republicans led by Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Mitt Romney (R–Utah) to make changes to clarify the vote-counting procedures.
The most important change is exactly what Trump's statement zeroed in on: clarifying that the vice president does not have the power to overturn an election. But other aspects of the law could be tightened as well, with an eye towards preventing the sorts of shenanigans that Republicans tried to pull in 2020—like prohibiting state legislatures from certifying competing slates of electors in defiance of the certified results. The Electoral Count Act was originally created to fix problems that arose during the controversial presidential election of 1876, so amending it to address new problems is very much in the spirit of the law's original intent.
"Fixing the Electoral Count Act is urgently needed to avoid future constitutional crises," writes Andy Craig of the Cato Institute. "It's likely that any version of reform proposed in Congress would be an improvement over the notoriously confusing status quo. A redrawn ECA should be grounded in the constitutional separation of powers, allowing Congress to act when it potentially needs to but otherwise closing the door to partisan malfeasance."
By pointing out how close he came to exploiting the law's weakness, Trump has only succeeded in making a powerful case for reform.
That's not the case that Trump was trying to make, of course. From the former president's perspective, he was arguing against reform—and blaming Pence for refusing to go along with the plot to "change the Presidential Election results in the Senate." Coming just days after Trump dangled the prospect of pardons for the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, it's not a stretch to suspect that Trump wants to make his personal grievances over the 2020 election a centerpiece of his potential 2024 presidential bid—a bid that might bring him into competition with Pence, who is rumored to be considering running as well.
That's going to be an ugly mess, but there's little to be done about it.
What can be fixed is the vagueness in the Electoral Count Act. Congress ought not to wait around to see if the next vice president in Pence's shoes will have an equal measure of courage.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I find it funny that every reference to the election results are specified as "legitimate results". Every single time. It's almost as if Boehm is defensive or something.
The entire point is that Trump and his team thought the election results weren't legitimate, that they were marred by fraud. Now, one can disagree with them on that. But, getting from there to support for this Act involves more than a bit of handwaving. Exactly what recourse, I wonder, does Reason suggest for addressing illegitimate results?
Damn your four minute fingers!
Exactly what recourse, I wonder, does Reason suggest for addressing illegitimate results?
State recounts and state courts? States run the elections, right?
"Oh, but those state judges are all corrupt!!!" Well, then there are habeas corpus petitions, some of which were reviewed by Trump's own appointees.
Recounts?!? Why need recounts? That implies the results were uncertain. You've gone on record as thinking Trump had no cause to think the results were uncertain. Were those recounts on behalf of Trump?
You are a fucking moron.
Recounts are useless to find fraud. Once the ballot and envelope are separated, there is no way to tell a legal ballot from a fraudulent one. Recounts had one objective to catch miscounting. Nothing else. Especially in these days of computerized voting machines. Hard drives routers and algorithms are what need to be seen and understood to understand fraudulent voting today. And the more we rely o electronics, the less secure our elections will be forever.
No voting machine should ever be hooked up to the Internet. Voting machines should have one purpose to total votes.
What is needed is a fully auditable process with chain of custody for each and every vote. This can be done with paper ballots more securely than with electronic votes. Every vote should be challengable and the audit should be able to verify or not the voter's identity and US citizenship and vote. Short of that we will have chaos every year.
Since only a few states have such a process, the 2020 election cannot be positively known to have been won by Biden or Trump.
THAT is what Congress should institute.
start making 330$ per hour w0rk from home and i g0t my 4th payment previ0us m0nth of $21570.I was surprised when my friend tell me she was averaging $20980 per m0nth but i see how it w0rks now check this link below..................
info is here ====>> https://onlinejob50.surge.sh/
The problem with recounts is that they aren't particularly useful for countering fraud. Recounting fraudulent ballots will, unsurprisingly, yield results not dramatically different from the original count of fraudulent ballots.
As to state courts, I'd be fine with that. If the courts would adhere to a consistent, objective standard of what complaints they are willing to hear. The courts have mostly said that, prior to the votes being counted, nobody had standing and, after they were counted, the complaint was moot.
That's why people want audits, not recounts. Recounting the same fake ballots will give you the same result.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… QWe It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
..
Visit following page for more information… http://moneystar33.blogspot.com
Yeah, keep on counting illegitimate votes.
The 20th Amendment, which moved the date of inauguration from March to January, basically made it impossible to put forward an effective legal challenge or recount process.
I don't know much about the history of the 20th, but this seems like an unintended(?) consequence of moving that date.
The deadline that matters for purposes of recounts is not the inauguration, but the date for the electoral college to cast their ballots.
More than two dozen courts have now found election rule changes to be illegal. Recounts uncovered thousands of double votes, thousands of out of district votes, dead voters, etc.
You want to do nothing about those avenues of corruption and fraud Jeff.
When he knows that his own side is very likely to be doing such things why would he want a fair and honest election?
Somebody dumped somewhere around 11 million dollars into illegal ballot harvesting in Georgia across both the election and following runoff. This was only found out after a group requested the camera footage from the cameras pointed at the drop boxes and went over it with a fine tooth comb. Then tracked down one of the people seen being driven to the drop boxes at between 2 and 5 am. But sure shit for brains, the election was totes legit.
Upcoming from Lying Jeffy:
1. Never heard of Dinesh D'Souza.
2. Everyone knows Dinesh D'Souza is a a right wing conspiracy kook (even though he’d never heard of him).
3. Any evidence presented by Dinesh D'Souza can be mocked because he’s a right wing conspiracy kook.
What would you call a judge who refuses to hear a case citing lack of standing then refuses to hear a case because “what difference at this point does it make?”?
There already exists a mechanism for addressing illegitimate results. That is the courts system. The problem for the Trump campaign was that there was no evidence of illegitimate results that they could bring to court. The Trump campaign had plety of opportunity to address their concerns. Ballots were counted and recounted, the courts were open for addressing any evidence of fraud. The recounts were the same, no evidence was presented to the courts.
A lack of evidence is proof of a coverup. Duh.
You remain an idiot. There was plenty of evidence as the 2 dozen court cases that went beyond mootness have now decided. Likewise the number of issues such as double voters.
But again, you're an idiot who got the Biden winning outcome they wanted. How's that working out?
Double voters were minimal. Most of the time it is a relative voting for someone, because they knew they wanted Trump to win.
Thousands. And citation on your idiotic claim?
He knows he did it. And that's enough for him.
The problem for the Trump campaign was that there was no evidence of illegitimate results that they could bring to court.
That's less than fully honest. The courts mostly didn't bother hearing any of the Trump complaints, citing standing and then relevance.
He did say "could". He didn't mean "did but was rejected" and was hoping no one would see the difference.
Proof of a conspiracy right there.
You overstate the majority of the courts' rulings, though I have little doubt you've ever actually looked at one, and instead merely repeat what you've read elsewhere. Actually there was something for the courts to look at. I'm not saying it did or didn't change things, but several State Secretaries of State modified the accepted date ranges where votes would be counted when that is set by the State legislatures. That's not "evidence", it's an objective fact and nobody disputes it. The first question is whether that is a question for the courts or state legislatures to resolve.
The other question that remains is how many more votes do those actions force to include and did that change anything. We will never know. However, it's potentially a serious problem when Party bureaucrats can modify legislatively set requirements on a whim. My guess is that you'd have a greater understanding and appreciation of the problem if it happened in reverse.
There are several other facts that are undisputed as well and too many to get into here, particularly with someone with Party blinders on. I think most Dems will acknowledge these problems but dismiss them for the sake of this election, as the turn of phrase is almost ubiquitously, " not substantial enough fraud to overturn the election", which includes a lot of assumptions and convenient vagueries that carefully avoid actually discussing and trying to justify specific problems. It's a bumper sticker quote for the parrots, though in most cases, it's asking a lot of the parrots to remember even that.
As for the courts not reviewing them, there are potentially multiple reasons why they declined. Likely chief among them is that courts wanted to steer clear of processes and rebukes that should be resolved by legislative action and not want to appear as though they were taking political action. The death threats if they even looked at it were possibly also an influence.
ACB didn't want her kids to get the Harrison Deal treatment.
“several State Secretaries of State modified the accepted date ranges where votes would be counted when that is set by the State legislatures.”
The Democrat Secretary of State in Michigan illegally instructed vote counters to ignore discrepancies between signatures for mail in ballots as well.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-michigan-sec-state-broke-law-absentee-ballot
Awww look, Jeff and M4E must have received the same talking points.
There's a month or so to challenge state-level results in the courts. Trump and team tried to do that, as well they should if the results are questionable. But when that effort failed they should have stepped aside gracefully and said "see you in 4 years", then got to work trying to make the elections harder to cheat on next time.
There's a month or so to challenge state-level results in the courts. Trump and team tried to do that...
And, again, how many actual hearings did they get? If the courts are chickening out by claiming standing and then relevance to get out of hearing the merits of the case, citing their lack of a court victory for their argument isn't exactly reassuring.
"make the elections harder to cheat"
I have it on good authority that any attempts to do such a thing is racist, anti-democratic and disenfranchises our most vulnerable citizens.
First off, it is exceptionally hard to cheat at an election. Not impossible, but near impossible to get the votes need to change an election.
If you really are addressing cheating it will not matter, but changing rules to keep "those" people from voting is really not acceptable.
Crosscheck PURGED an astonishing 7,264,422 suspects in 2016, yet they found no more than four perpetrators who have been charged with double voting or deliberate double registration.
In 2016 Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump and Kris Kobach tried to get Crosscheck required for EVERY state, which would have made the Trump family President forever.
Proof? And please don't cite convictions. Because then you'd have to claim nobody jaywalks.
Zero convictions, they never told the ones purged that their vote was purged.
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
Virginia removed an astonishing 41,637 voters based on Kobach’s accusation they "MIGHT" have voted twice. Not one arrest.
Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program
The U.S. Census data shows that minorities are overrepresented in 85 of 100 of the most common last names. If your name is Washington, there's an 89 percent chance you're African-American. If your last name is Hernandez, there's a 94 percent chance you're Hispanic. If your name is Kim, there's a 95 percent chance you're Asian.
Most of the voters purged were minorities, usual Dem voters.
In Kansas, out of more than 850,000 votes cast, only 14 names were recommended for prosecution and the Kansas Secretary of State reported no convictions.
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
Virginia removed an astonishing 41,637 voters based on Kobach’s accusation they COULD have voted twice. Not one arrest.
Greg Palast wrote books about it.
Dozens of citations fell off your post.
POLITFACT!!!!
Douchebruce is an idiot.
You can't handle the truth !
It’s true that you’re an idiot.
LBJ 1948.
JFK 1960.
Those are both established facts although some partisans will dispute 1960 even to this day. Daley bragged about it.
1960 demonstrates how easy it can be to steer an election. A deep and widespread fraud effort was not necessary to give the election to Kennedy. All that was needed was a small amount of fraud in Chicago and Charleston, WV.
Slight problem CE... prior to the elections the courts were saying there was nobody who could show harm, so suits were tossed. Post election it was that the vote already happened, so they were tossed on mootness. The actual court cases that judges did not take the weasel way out when almost universally in favor of Trump's or the GOPs protestations.
“It's almost as if Boehm is defensive or something.”
Maybe because there are many prominent people pushing a big lie that needs to be defended against. There’s nothing wrong with being defensive in the face of a major offense.
"Why are you being so defensive about the truth?" - Bill Dalasio
Because the truth needs to be defended against liars.
Funny you should be referencing "The Big Lie" when Boehm is the guy utilizing the big lie propaganda technique of repetitively including a disputed characterization of something when that characterization isn't even necessary.
Sure. Whatever you say. Trump isn’t still out there pushing the lie every day, including right up until yesterday’s rally in Texas.
No fraud at all right Mike? You've made that claim often.
Trump isn’t still out there pushing the lie every day:
It's like you're too stupid to understand that 'the big lie' is that Biden won the election. Even as time and action prove it over and over again.
I find it funny that every reference to the election results are specified as "illegitimate results". Every single time. It's almost as if Trump is defensive or something.
Unlike 2016 and 2022, which were (or will be) marred by illegitimacy.
Except people aren't repetitively referencing the election results as definitively illegitimate. Maybe the voices in your head are, but that's between you and your therapist.
Hillary is still claiming that Trump stole the 2016 election.
That sticks out to me as well. The way it is stated it sounds like they are saying that his intent was to overturn legitimate results. When the stated intent was to overturn results he did not consider legitimate. Which I don't really see any reason not to believe is the genuine motivation. Maybe it's all lies, I can't read minds. But people are allowed to be wrong.
The entire point is what Trump said--
"If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?" Trump wrote. "Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Why this urgency to stop something you're all claiming can't be done?
Why make it damned near impossible to get an accurate count of ballots?
Why shut down ballot counting until observers are gone only to open up immediately after they left with hordes rolling in with ballots from gods know where--and a sudden jump in votes foe Biden?
They seated a usurper in the White House. A demented idiot that was supposed to dance on leftist strings--only to find that usurpers find ruling very difficult.
"Why shut down ballot counting until observers are gone only to open up immediately after they left with hordes rolling in with ballots from gods know where--and a sudden jump in votes foe Biden?"
Where did this happen?
Georgia. It is well documented.
Why comment on something you're ignorant of?
Don't jump on him, he asked, he did not state it was not true.
This displays a level of ignorance so enormous that you should be ashamed to have written it.
But your further excretions suggest that you are the type that rolls about in their own ignorance until the stench is so great that even you endlessly vomit at your own stupidity.
Go away, back to the cesspool from which you've oozed.
Defensive? Could that be because of the constant cries about how it wasn't "legitimate"? Oh, but wait. Venezuela and China always team up to elect Democrats while the Russians have a fondness for Republicans.
Or were you talking about all of the debunked claims of voter fraud? How's that audit going in Arizona? Find any Chinese made ballots yet? LOL
Since there is not an auditable trail for each and every vote you can't be certain that Biden or Trump won. It will never be known with certainty.
THAT's WHY WE NEED A FULLY TRANSPARENT AUDITABLE SYSTEM.
That's because bohem is a subhuman cancer that voted for the corrupt rapist pedofile Joe biden
"But, getting from there to support for this Act involves more than a bit of handwaving. Exactly what recourse, I wonder, does Reason suggest for addressing illegitimate results?"
At minimum, it seems like allowing the VP to unilaterally decide to not open an envelope is bad design. Banning that but keeping the ability of a house member and a senator to object, which leads to a vote of both chambers would maintain accountability while not giving too much power to a single person.
Anybody with basic common sense (all sense is not common), could see that there were shenanigans with the votes and voting process of 2020, and probably has been going on for a long time. The big difference were an over abundance of mail in votes not vetted properly, poor oversight, and not following the rules in changing voting laws in many states. Then comes the cry of 'voter ID!' that was geared mostly towards blacks as if we are too dumb to get an ID card. This mantra is nothing more than an attempt to change the voting requirements to get even illegals to vote. How does that not make us into a banana republic? We don't need everybody voting, just those that actually know what's at steak, and how laws affect our future. We don't need fools voting to wreak our country who would surrender their freedoms for handouts. This, ironically, does not help blacks. What helps blacks is the free market and good skills training.
The 2020 Election results absolutely WERE legitimate. Joe Biden won the 2020 POTUS Election, fair, square, and legally. It's clear that Donald Trump is looking for a reason and justification for pardoning the rioters who participated in the January 6th, 2021 Insurrection at the White House. Eliminating the Electoral college once and for all--immediately, is our only way of protection, if one gets the drift.
To be more exact, Donald Trump's overall actions and behaviors, especially when he tried to deligitimize the 2020 POTUS election, which Joe Biden won legally, fairly and squarely, which led to the Insurrection on January 6th, 2021, absolutely and totally proves the necessity for the doing away with the Electoral College---entirely!
No.
Trump was attempting to overturn what he thought were illegitimate results.
Do you also accuse defense attorneys of trying to overturn legitimate results of the trial that hasn't issued its verdict yet?
STOP THE PRESSES!!! INSERT HOTTEST NEWS FLASH!!!
Trump finally (Sort of) concedes!
My most-senior inside contact at the Shadow White House has surreptitiously slipped me an advance copy of the ex-lame-duck POTUS’s concession speech. Without further ado, here it is:
Friends, non-foreigner-type True Americans, and all who Make America Great Again, lend me your ears! I come to bury Biden, not to praise him. Biden and his minions stole the elections, and we must dishonor that! To Make America Great Again, we must invent the most fantastic, fabulous, YUUUGEST BIGNESS EVAH SEEN, in the ways of truly factually fictitious, but Spiritually and Metaphorically True, NEW Republican ballots! Because I have directed My Generals and My Scientists to research the current and past performance, efficacy, and patriotism of one-party states, versus multi-party states. As I have directed them to, My impartial, unbiased, data-driven council of My Generals and My Scientists have determined that yea verily, one-party states work better! Therefore, we must all strive for the Glorious Day, when America becomes a one-party state, under the One True Party, the Republican Party!
But for now, the courts have sided with Biden and his camel-toe, and Antifa, BLM, and all the Marxist terrorists. We must let the courts have it their way, with mayo on the side. I mean, with Mao Tse Tung on the side, but without the Proud Boys standing back and standing by. Thank you, Proud Boys, for having stood by me. Also, thank you, Steve Bannon, Vladimir Putin, Kim Ill Dung, and Pepe the Stolen-Intellectual-Property Frog. Pepe, watch out for Miss Piggy, she and her “pre-nuptial contracts” will clean your clock, just like Melania is set to clean mine soon! But I digest.
So we can’t disrepute what the nasty courts have said, or there might be civil war. Sad! The courts aren’t very American these days! And if you don’t like what I just said? Well, I’m sorry that you feel that way!
So congratulations to Biden for having stolen the elections! This is America, so we must properly honor the decisions of the courts, in a dishonorable way! Biden can come and live with us in the White House, per the wishes of the courts. He can pour our covfefe for us, for Steve Bannon, Pepe the Frog, and I, and Jill can make sandwiches for us. We promise to call him POTUS, and her, First Lady! POTUS of covfefe, and First Lady of sandwiches, that is! Hey Biden! Get yer butt over here! Pepe needs some covfefe!
That setup will get us by for a little while! Meanwhile, we can schedule the NEW run-off elections, this time without any fraudulent so-called “Democratic” votes being allowed, and we can do this RIGHT the next time!
Meanwhile, congratulations to Joe Stalin-Biden, on being elected POTUS of pouring covfefe for Pepe!
You're dead wrong here, squarely one! Donald Trump tried to steel the POTUS 2020 Election fairly, squarely and legally by whipping up his supporters into the January 6th, 2021 Resurrection, and thereby give him an excuse to pardon the participants in the 1/6/21`Insurrection and enable them to suffer consequences of endangering people and trying to steal the Election.
Trump was attempting to overturn what he thought were illegitimate results.
Because we should take Trump at his word, right?
What the fuck do you not understand about due process? What the fuck is so incomprehensible about refusing to blindly accept the results? Did you scream at Hillary any time it all since 2016 for refusing to accept that Trump won? Exactly when the fuck did the results change from questioned to accepted?
What a fucking moron you are.
After about 60 failed attempts at showing fraud in court.
Did any cases actually get to the evidentiary stage? As I recall, most were dismissed on procedural grounds almost immediately, either due to timing issues ("no injury" before the election; "too late" after the election) or the identity of the plaintiff (lack of standing, etc.).
Are there any cases where the evidence was reviewed and rejected?
There are now around 25 cases that have been adjudicated, all stating election rules were illegally changed.
Arizona and Ga both admit but refuse to prosecute thousands of double voters.
Pa refuses to prosecute destroyed ballot envelopes despite state law.
No state has opened up their books to a full audit. This includes Arizona.
I love that they continue to ignore that every time it’s pointed out to them.
They ignore all evidence that contradicts their narrative on every fucking topic.
"I believe he should get due process" is not equivalent to "I believe he is being sincere".
Liars and crooks get due process, and rightly so. It doesn't mean we should automatically take at face value the claims of liars and crooks.
That is pretty much how our legal system works. The default assumption is innocence unless evidence is provided to support guilt or culpability.
And yet you whine that Trump should not have contested the "legitimate" election results.
Not sure chemjeff has.
First of all, I haven’t seen chemjeff “whine” about anything.
Second, I believe his position is probably that Trump should have stopped questioning the election results after fraud was investigated and disproven.
Letters-turning (and eyes-turning) Vanna White had the POWER to select the WINNERS of "Wheel of Fortune"! Like a WUSS, she never asserted Her Rights!!! She'll go down in infamy along with VEEP Pence!
Vanna White was hot in May 1987.
girls of the big8 issue about that time too
She still is with enough makeup, distance, and a soft lens. That said at age 64, we should all be lucky enough to be that rich and look that good.
>>A bipartisan group of senators
is time to panic and run the other direction if Collins and Romney are part of a bipartisan group
There was supposed to be a comma in there. It's just "bi, partisan senators."
So Sinema is a yes vote?
Whenever I get a Sinema infection, I used my Secret Super Power (known as "Booger Beam") to clear out my Sinema infection, one nostril at a time!
(My wife barely tolerates it outdoors, and has a hissy fit if I even THINK about deploying "Booger Beam" indoors. But otherwise, I do generally recommend using "Booger Beam" to clear out bothersome Sinema infections! It's fairly easy to learn to deploy mostly-safely, actually, if you aim carefully.)
As a gay, Black man who is GOPProud like Milo and Caitlin how many times do I have to say this: the United States is not a democracy; it’s a Republic. So, when Democrats actually win popular elections and the Republican steps into the WH well tough fucking luck you liberal pooze. Read the Constitution! Stop whining! The majority of 45% has spoken. The voice of the people has spoken. Liberals are just uppity and want to keep normal Blacks for Trump and Farrakhan on the liberal plantation.
You are an ignorant quibbler. The founders and framers themselves used "democracy" and "republic" interchangeably.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
Yes! Totally. The Founders were unarguably democratic and would very much admire what the GOP is doing today with voting rights for gay Blacks like me!
You're not even a good troll.
lol AAA is the new spaz on the block
Democracy depends on people willing to do the right thing. There is a general understanding that the January 6th proceeding is ceremonial. The VP is expected to count the votes presented to him and the Congress to accept them. It is sad that this has to be spelled out in law. The rise in authoritarianism here and around the world now requires that it be set forth in law.
I would also like to see a law preventing the submission of fake electors and the pressuring of state officials by campaigns to change election results.
I don't think the VP has the authority to reject electoral votes. The VP has so little power that it would be utterly nonsensical for the Framers to vest that much authority in the position and to do so in such an obscure manner. Something like that would absolutely need to have been made explicit.
That said, this Act is just posturing. The VP's powers on this, whether he can or cannot, are derived from the Constitution. A statute cannot alter, expand, or remove them.
Especially since said V.P. could, and often was, the presidential winner of the election. Imagine Nixon refusing to read the electoral votes for JFK because he felt Daley had screwed him in Illinois?
I think this is a really good point. What if Al Gore had rejected George Bush's win. It is nonsensical to think the VP has this power. But because of Trump we have to spell it out in law.
I have no problem with laws being specific or making them that way when there is a question, particularly when there's nothing on the line at the moment and Democrats are at their greatest risk of losing their majority and grip since Jimmy Carter.
This is an easy fix and one that Democrats can't later bitch about when the coin has done its inevitable flip because this is done under their domination. If the situation were to reverse, and it could well do so, Democrats would completely lose their shit over a Republican-dominated government making it specific.
What if Al Gore had rejected George Bush's win
Al Gore DID reject Bush's win.
And took it to court, and was not denied access through procedural shenanigans and lost.
If this power ever existed, how did Jefferson, as the Vice President elected in the previous cycle, end up in a contest in the House with his own VP, Aaron Burr, that took an entire week and 36 ballots to settle?
Clearly, Pence is correct. No such authority exists or Jefferson would have exercised it in 1801.
The rise in authoritarianism here and around the world
Gotta hand it to the lefties. Only in their world does leaving the most authoritarian century in the history of humanity constitute a rise. Unless they have already successfully redacted the revolutions of Lenin and Mao and the subsequent collectivization that lead to 100 million dead.
This coming from a guy who belongs to an authoritarian church that has turned Utah into a theocracy and is actively trying to do the same to the rest of the US.
“But, but free agency!”
Funny. In my experience Mormons loved talking about that, but in practice it only applies to other Mormons and their fascist pals.
Wow! Way to beat down exaggeration with hyperbole and paranoia. I think you left out the Mormon's annual death marches, sacrifices of virgins and slave labor camps. Needs more salt and Hitler references too.
Utah - worst theocracy ever. They let kids walk down the street without a parent and let people ignore red lights late at night. Expecting it to be wiped off the Earth any day now.
What the fuck kind of response is that?
Why are virtually all public office holders and civil servants pervert worshippers? Why all the screwy liquor laws? Why all the discrimination against non Mormons?
Your church has fucked over a lot of people. You’re all just too stupid and arrogant to realize it. Don’t say I didn’t warn ya when you and Russ Nelson’s heads are on pikes.
I know that we shouldn't laugh at the ignorant and bigoted, no matter how loudly you rant, but I'm sorry, you're just too good at it.
I don’t laugh at the ignorant and bigoted. I call them out on their bullshit.
What nonsense. The 20th century saw many authoritarians, but hardly more than other centuries. There was for a long time only authoritarians in the form of monarchs or or dictators ruled the world. Was China less authoritarian under the Emperor, or Russia less authoritarian under the Czar?
Nonsense? LOL!
The authoritarian Marxist governments of the 20th century industrialized death. At least the Emperor and the Czar didn't pretend killing citizens was for their own good.
But please, apologize for the Communists some more.
I don't think you know what authoritarianism actually is.
None of the leftist (or left leaning libertarians) that post here know what it is.
Wait. The 20th century was more authoritarian than all those centuries hundreds of years ago when every country was run by a king or emperor? Seriously?
I don't think it's all that clear either way. Absolute monarchs could be and often tried to be authoritarian. But aren't necessarily so. And I don't think there are a lot of examples of more traditional monarchs exercising the level of authoritarianism that the various kinds of socialism of the 20th century attempted to do.
Yes.
Read some fucking history, dimwit.
Regardless of the lack of accountability of the authority to the individual citizens, the real measure of authoritarianism is evidenced in the impact of the government on the day to day lives of the citizens.
Again, 20th century Communists industrialized fear and death. Find the equivalent of that in history.
Joe Biden Just Showed Why Reforming the Electoral Count Act is Not Essential
this could easily read. Imagine if the election had been overturned, whether it was legit or not. We might have have 4 trillion more debt, 2 million more illegals, Putin invading Ukraine, NK launching missles, inflation, cops being murdered, schools closed, vaccine mandates, or affirmative actions nominations.
For all Trump sucks, he was clearly the lesser of two evils.
Put it another way: Democrats have won The popular vote in the last 7-out-of-8 elections. But yet Democrats have only entered the WH in 5-out-of-8 elections. You want to reform that kind of system? With the consequence that a Marxist-Leninist Maoist like Biden run the country?!? I think— and other Black gay Republicans would agree— that this kind of utterly democratic systems needs zero reform, thank you very much!
America is not and was not intended to be a democracy. Small, less populated states were deliberately given greater weight. Majoritarianism is dangerous.
There are two choices in a presidential election. There is absolutely no sane reason the loser of the popular vote should ever get to win. You're just rationalizing.
Between Bush the Lesser and Trump, the EC has not been sending its best.
Plato thinks you’re an idiot. I agree.
There is not and never has been a national popular vote, any more than any sporting champion is determined by total points over a season.
Your refusal to acknowledge this puts you in the Hillary-won-2016 camp. Fuck off. Go find a long pier.
This is dumb even for you Shrike. But cements youre simply an ignorant leftist.
Presidential election isn't a popular election vote.
If who got the most points was the winner, Dallas would be the Super Bowl Champ this year and Tampa Bay would be the runner-up, Dallas having scored 70 more points this season than either of this year's SB teams. As it is, the two teams that actually are in the SB are tied for 7th place for total points scored. But that's not how the game is played... is it?
You play the game being played, not the one that you figure out how you could have one after the season is done. Typical Dem bullshit... don't like how the rules work against you, change the rules. Whether in politics or football, when you change how the outcome is determined, you change the entire game and season strategy.
In politics, that means Republicans would campaign for every vote in New England and on the west coast instead of ceding those to the Democrats, and you'd see a lot more blue-state Republicans vote instead of not bothering.
The popular vote isn't a real thing. There aren't any national elections, so national popular vote is completely irrelevant and artificial.
This is all just stupid theater.
If the Vice President has that authority, this proposed act could not curtail it because it would amount to a Constitutional Amendment.
If the Vice President does not have that authority, the proposed act is pointless.
The electoral count act is an act of Congress and thus subject to modification by Congress. The Constitution does not specify who opens the envelope containing the list of electors.
Uhm, we actually don't have to take Trump's word for it, Boehm. We're not stuck deciding that just because he says the VP has that authority, it must be true and we must rewrite the law. We can actually read the law.
Which I did. And the VP does nothing more than open the envelopes and reads the results. The Senate certifies and can do so openly over the VP's objections. He doesn't have the power or authority to change the election, therefore, we actually don't need to change the law.
It's weird how you can think Trump is constantly lying and wrong, and then you simply took his word about the Electoral Count Act. At the very least isn't that worth a fact check?
Oh how they will howl when VIP Kamala Harris decides that Texas went blue. She has the right you know!
with an eye towards preventing the sorts of shenanigans that Republicans tried to pull in 2020—like prohibiting state legislatures from certifying competing slates of electors in defiance of the certified results.
But we still get to ignore all the shenanigans like courts and executives changing election rules at the last minute outside of the legal process, right? No need to tighten those aspects up. Just the dirty evil Trump related parts, right?
Only Republicans are able to engage in shenanigans. If Democrats do it, they are protecting democracy.
Boehm the Birdbrain is such a predictable progtard.
Newsflash Birdbrain: Nothing is broke, why try to 'fix' it?
The bottom line is even if VP Pence had the power (he does not), he chose not to exercise it. Which speaks volumes about his character.
Fix Congress, not the Electoral Count Act. While we are at it, Reason, trying 'fixing' Boehm (probably won't work, he is a progtard and you just can't fix progtard).
Reason has their share of them. It's a shame that an organization calling itself Reason employs so many people who call themselves "journalists" instead of "opinion propagandists" who are incapable of discovering logical fallacy wherever they find it in their own ideology, even acknowledge their bias, and/or being able to recognize that there are multiple viewpoints and pro/con arguments, or at least being able to break them down regardless of side.
One should expect this of course in the comments, but not in the articles themselves. Can anyone anywhere tell me why anyone should give a damn what Eric Boehm thinks about something? What are his qualifications to expertise in anything? At best, he's a mediocre writer and not a strong, let alone unbiased thinker.
The very fundamental definition of "Reason" should require that anyone claiming to be a journalist be able to do what my 9th-grade debate coach required of us, to be able to state an opposing side in a way that the other party would agree that's their argument before you are qualified to dispute it.
Trump did not say the quiet part out loud. He has never been quiet about that part. His claim was that Pence could have refused to accept the submitted election results on the grounds of suspicion that they were tainted. You can say Trump has little to no convincing evidence that the results being counted were not legitimate, but this is no admission by Trump that he thought they were.
Your suggestion then is that it is not a crime if you believe your action are legitimate. Ex-President Trump believed the results were false and so he did not have to accept them. A man believes the money his company has is his so he can then take it.
Well no....both men can utilize the available processes to adjudicate the outcome (and advocate for the outcome he wants).
Even if he's wrong to think the company's money is his and not the company's, standing at the podium and saying "This money is mine and I'm taking it." is not saying the quiet part out loud.
Otherwise, the VP should have the right to refuse to certify the vote and Boehm thinks nobody should talk about it out loud.
Yeah, he's at the fucking podium and he's the only one speaking. He's not saying the quiet part out loud. He's using shared words in a way that you don't think he should be able to do.
I agree that the electoral count act is in need of reform, but your entire premise for this article is false. You claim that Trump admitted that he was trying to change the "legitimate results" yet he explicitly said in your quote, "despite fraud" that does not sound like an admission that the results were legitimate to me. Quite the contrary it is simply another example of Trump claiming that the results were NOT legitimate. Reason used to be a bastion of responsible reporting, but lately your bias is showing as badly as CNN, Fox News, and OAN. Can't anybody report HONESTLY about the former president?
Well, they certainly can't at Reason. There is simply no intelligent and rational argument that doesn't acknowledge a lot of fraudulent activities. They may or may not have actually changed any results, but that's all conjecture, we will never know, and the entire working premise that nothing untoward and corrupt didn't happen, is itself a lie.
Reason should understand that identifying as Libertarian only gets them so far and doesn't shield them from the affirmative lack of trust currently owned by the majority of media. Why is it that I never see anyone actually agreeing with the writers that they objectively reported on anything or fairly represented more than one side?
How much of this have we seen in the last year-plus with news media in general? Anything that doesn't meet the momentary accepted and promoted message is deemed, fake, anti-science, illegitimate, white supremacist, and now even terrorism.
The states had existing processes to select electors. It's NOT the Vice President's power to ignore those electors and choose an alternate slate.
If the states don't like their electoral slate, it's up to them to change the process BEFORE HAND, and not wait until the process works as intended then cry foul and send up an alternate and illegal slate.
The article starts out by claiming that Trump was trying to overturn legitimate election results and then goes into painstaking detail about how Trump was trying to stay inside the letter of the law - this not doing anything illegal.
And none of it has anything to do with whether or not we need to change the electoral college rules for more clarity.
Like Boehm literally admits Pence has the power - so there was no attempt to overthrow the election.
And it certainly doesn't justify stepping on state perogatives.
That should really be the takeaway. Trump may be wrong and a big dumb idiot. But it's all legal and constitutionally protected. There was never any chance of the election being overturned by extra-legal means. It's not the country's finest moment, for sure. But it's hardly the crisis of democracy or brink of authoritarian rule that people are making it out to be.
I couldn't agree more. However, you're ignoring the fact that literally everything right now is a crisis of democracy. And the fact that you're ignoring that is itself puts our democracy at risk. Heck, the fact that I'm pointing that out is also a crisis of democracy. Prepare to hear about a lot of crises of democracy by anyone who isn't going to win or get their way.
Disagree. Jan. 6th was a crisis of democracy. Locking everyone in their homes for 2 yrs., knowingly proposing unConstitutional mask and vaccine mandates, especially children, is just how we beat a virus.
What's the harm in being even a little over-vigilant? It's American democracy. The world's stability depends on it.
I’m sure you’ll thoroughly read whatever legislation they come up with and honestly determine if their is anything harmful in it.
There was never any chance of the election being overturned by extra-legal means.
The election WAS overturned by extra-legal means.
That's what Trump was trying to stop.
He failed.
January 6, 2020? Wasn't it 2021?
We need a reDATE, not a reCOUNT.
Yup, you caught a typo in a blog post! Did you notice the two other correct instances of the date?
Dee called out someone for misspelling Neil Young’s name yesterday.
This opinionated person had my interest up till it interjected his own opinion into the writing. You say Trump said out loud what his real intentions was. How do you know his whole ideal was to show them how to fix the electoral college. Maybe as you said he took advantage of a weak system. Just like the J6, "leave the door open and they will enter". CLOSE THE DOOR, JOKER
We cannot continue to cohabitate with lying, totalitarian cancer.
Leftists, and allies like Boehm, have crossed too many lines.
Don't let the big beautiful wall hit you on the way out.
"an attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election"
No, he believes there were shenanigans. He might be right. Recently, surveillance videos taken at the Georgia election drop boxes have started to be released. They show people approaching the drop box with lots of ballots, taking an image of the ballots with the box in the background, then stuffing the ballots into the box. There are lots of people shown doing this, and no good explanation of how that could be a legal activity.
That they did this is shown pretty clearly. The lawyers who are releasing the videos claim that the picture they always take is to prove they deposited the votes, in order to get paid.
Additionally, they claim that there are more than 200 such individuals, and many of them did this at multiple drop boxes.
I guess we will know if the claims are accurate when they release more video and raw data.
We started with- "Trump was an illegitimate president, but Biden won fairly, and there was no election fraud. It is treason to disagree".
Then we went to "There was no significant amount of voter fraud"
Then" there was not enough fraud to have changed the results"
Followed by "no single incidence of fraud was enough to change the election outcome"
And it is being capped off with "but if Trump wins in 2024, the election will be crooked, just like it was in 2016."
“No, he believes there were shenanigans.”
Just to give a couple of his actions that went beyond questioning, he tried to get Georgia election officials to “find” him enough votes to change the Georgia results, and he tried to get Vice President Pence to reject electoral votes from states Trump did not win.
It appears from the most current information, that the election in Georgia was rigged a bunch of different ways.
Trump is a sleazy New York real estate guy, but there is little doubt that he was unprepared for the levels of sleaze and corruption in government service.
I am sure he found the overt cheating very frustrating, and that came through when he called Georgia. Importantly, he did not ask anyone to falsify anything. "Find" might be interpreted as to go look in the dumpster behind the the building where they were counting ballots in Fulton county, and pull out some of the thousands of republican votes hidden there.
Background:
Prior to his election, it seemed Trump was simply a loose cannon and a blowhard.
After his (totally NOT Russki-affected election, steaming piles of lefty shit), I got what was hoped for: A SCOTUS nominee who was not a proggie, already capsized to port.
And then we got De Vos, Ajit Pai, Kavanuagh, a major reduction in the growth of regulations and some real reductions, with a market responding with a +35% Dow and UE at 3.0%(!)
Got repeal of the national medical insurance mandate, withdrawal of the (illegal) Paris agreement and much more.
Yep, he remained a boor and a loose cannon and someone I really wouldn't like to spend time with...
And the best POTUS we've had for the last century.
But WRT the accusations mentioned here, I want to see exactly what was said to whom and when and how that applies to the law.
If we are dealing with 'protestors who become "insurrectionists" 'cause TRUMP' (as I suspect), we've got yet one more case of the swamp critters petrified (and lying), since they might have to find a job.
Chapter, verse, direct quotes and direct charges regarding the law. Fuck the '35 convictions of Trump associates' being a whole lot of unpaid parking tickets by people who knew Trump at one time or another.
Again, I don't like the guy (just his actions), but his words have been treated with such dishonesty for the last near 5 years, that whoever is making the claims here has a steep and long hill to climb to prove the point.
I'm willing to beat on Trump, as I have regarding tariffs since he was in office, but put them cards on the table; every one of them.
BTW, given the bogus, bullshit, dishonest charges against Trump over the last 4-1/2 years, I'm certainly still willing to bet on him; the swamp assholes have proven to be panicked piles of shit for that period of time; why would they change now?
Speaking of bogus charges, remember how they impeached Trump over asking for the firing of Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor, to be investigated? Because it really looked like Biden had demanded it because Shokin was about to expose Hunter's influence scheme?
Biden claimed he'd applied the pressure as part of administration policy, on account of the State Department thinking Shokin was corrupt.
Here's the letter from the State Department they DIDN'T produce to Trump's defense team, complementing Shokin on his good work.
Biden's explanation for getting Shokin fired appears to have been bogus, bullshit, and dishonest.
What letter did you read? That letter does not complement Shokin on "his good work". It uses generic diplomatic language about being "impressed" by the anti-corruption work of "your [Ukraine's] government". Nowhere in that letter is Shokin himself praised. You should also pay attention to the date, June 9, 2015. Biden's message about firing Shokin was in December 2015. Shokin hadn't even been in the top prosecutor spot for very long when that letter was written (around 3 months, I think). Besides which, he inherited the Burisma investigation, which was started 3 years earlier. The accusations (not just from Biden or the Obama administration, but from the EU as well) were that he was actually slow walking the investigation. His former deputy claimed in May 2016 that the Burisma investigation was actually dormant when he resigned in disgust over what he saw as corruption in the prosecutor's office in Feb 2016. (He was targeted by that office and accused of corruption himself, shortly after, in what he claims was retaliation for speaking out.)
Biden's explanation for getting Shokin fired only appears to have been bogus, bullshit, and dishonest to those that were hoping that dirt on Biden exists and wanted to believe every bad thing possible about Biden and nothing bad about Trump.
But let's assume for a moment, that there was legitimate reason to think that there was something to the whole Hunter-Burisma-Joe Biden thing. What is the proper way for the U.S. government to handle that? I would think that a President that cared about ethics and that wanted to appear ethical would have been careful not to be personally involved in any investigation or request to a foreign government to investigate a potential election opponent. Wouldn't you? After all, the whole argument from Trump supporters over the Steele dossier and wiretaps of Carter Page and all of that was that Obama's administration was abusing its power to damage Trump. (Never mind that essentially none of that became public until after the election, while the point of Trump's efforts toward Ukraine was for them to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens.)
A President that cared about ethics would have also made sure not just to be personally distanced, but would also be sure that White House staff, cabinet members and other high ranking officials with direct access to him, and anyone with personal connections to him would not be involved. Basically, it should be driven by career diplomatic and DoJ officials, rather than politically appointed ones.
But Trump has never cared about being ethical, let alone appearing to be ethical. So he personally pressed the Ukrainian president to see that an investigation into the Bidens happened (something that the people preparing for that phone call did not expect at all to happen), and he encouraged him to have his people discuss it with his personal lawyer and the U.S. Attorney General. I mean, seriously, WTF would anyone with two brain cells to rub together think would come of that?
Coming just days after Trump dangled the prospect of pardons for the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, it's not a stretch to suspect that Trump wants to make his personal grievances over the 2020 election a centerpiece of his potential 2024 presidential bid
There once was a time when many of those people would have been pardoned or given clemency by Biden. But Presidents don't really do that anymore.
"...There once was a time when many of those people would have been pardoned or given clemency by Biden. But Presidents don't really do that anymore..."
Plural, asshole?
You.
Are.
STILL.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
"Former President Donald Trump issued a statement on Sunday confirming that his efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election were…an attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election."
I've seen this sort of thing repeatedly, is there a name for this trope, where somebody states their position, you think their position is wrong, so you say that they've confirmed that their position is wrong?
Like, Bobby issues a statement confirming that he took the last piece of pie, asserting that mom had promised he could eat it, and you say, "Bobby issued a statement confirming that he did indeed steal my piece of pie."?
I don't know, but someone does need to come up with a name for it if they haven't already.
Trump wrote that statement. In it, he used the word "overturn".
"Unfortunately, he [Pence] didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Call it a Freudian slip, or "saying the quiet part loud", or that he doesn't believe that the election was "legitimate", but Trump wrote what he wrote.
Legitimate! Legitimate! Legitimate!
This story is a moronic lie. If Trump had prevailed he would have overturned the FRAUDULENT RESULT.
“overturn the legitimate results of the 2020”
I made it that far. Is the author serious? I know everyone needs clicks, but I am dismayed by any ostensibly-adult person honestly thinking the results of 2020 were legitimate.
You are missing the point here.
Why should we assume that Trump was motivated by some sincere effort to stop fraud? Especially since he was whining about fraud even before the first votes were cast?
If ANY DEMOCRAT had behaved like Trump did, you would be complaining that the whole thing was a cynical attempt to thwart the will of the people and to stay in power despite the results of the election. But since it's Trump, we are supposed to believe he has sincere motives, in this case? Unlike all of the other times when he has lied?
I do not understand how some of you continue to give this man the benefit of the doubt over and over and over again.
What does it fucking matter that an accused criminal has a defense attorney even when he knows he committed the crime? Does he not get his day in court?
Where do you get off deciding who gets due process and who doesn't?
Hillary set new standards for refusing to accept an election. Did you ever complain about her?
Copying your all caps ... IF TRUMP had lost in 2016 and behaved like Hillary did, would you have complained and taken trump's side?
I fucking doubt it.
"I do not understand how some of you continue to give this man the benefit of the doubt over and over and over again."
Cue up Living Colour.
Yeah, his mean tweets are indisputable proof that he lied about everything. Except of course the Russia fraud thing you spent 4 years bitching about, NAFTA, the economy, unemployment, pretty much everything on China, the Hunter Biden bullshit, etc. etc.
Really now... we even have Adam Schiff saying, 'How could we possibly have suspected that a spy being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to come up with damning claims against a political opponent was lying and that the origination of the allegations came from an American who is a Clinton campaign operative?'
Yes, how indeed could we have suspected that? And you assholes kept that bullshit going for 3 years and now have the temerity to talk about "Trump lies". You should be ashamed of yourself, but don't expect anyone to take your suspicions seriously.
I don't know. I assume that many of the people pushing all the Russia 2016 election stuff believed what they were saying and thought they were doing the right thing.
Because that’s how are fucking system works? Man, what would we do without mind readers like Jeff and Mike here to tell us what all of their ideological opponents are ACTUALLY thinking?
If ANY DEMOCRAT had behaved like Trump did
Nearly EVERY Democrat, in nearly EVERY election, behaves far worse than Trump ever did.
Al Gore STILL snuffles around talking about the election that he, and the left were unable to steal.
Kerry STILL blathers about 'swiftboating'.
And Hillary.
I'd tell you to pull your head out of your ass, jeff, but it's been up there so long that your brain and your bowels have fused.
he's Jeff. decides who lives and dies too.
Trump and his associates got many, many days in court. And failed to make their case.
He's also too cowardly to respond when insulted, and, like sarcasmic, claims he is taking the high road and only responds to actual arguments.
May or may not be a lefty, but he sure swallows their hook, line, and sinker.
Not even comparable. She griped and pouted, but conceded within a couple of days of the election.
If Trump had ONLY done what Hillary did - whine for a few days then write a book, then shut up - then nobody would be complaining.
Another one live on Arsinio. That guitar player makes it look so easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j74mxqvxRDQ
It's really fucking sad when Hillary, who has no class at all, has more class than Trump.
And then wrote a book about WHAT HAPPENED, and got paid to read her acceptance speech like two weeks ago.
And ginned up a whole conspiracy theory with Russia to hamper his presidency.
Forget that part Mike?
A funny way to concede, by spending the next four years complaining that Trump cheated. Five years, now, and she still doesn't believe Trump won.
She conceded the election, but has spent the time since then claiming that the same Russians who paid her those millions of dollars decided to throw away their bribe money and support her opponent.
No they didn't. IN the cases they actually got to see in court they overwhelmingly won. Most were thrown out on technicalities and standing. But continue to lie like Jeff and Sarc.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-michigan-sec-state-broke-law-absentee-ballot
Liars lie. Dee and Lying Jeffy are liars.
Hillary claimed Trump's election was illegitimate just a month or two ago dummy.
And Richard Nixon had more class than any of them.
Hillary literally said Trump was an illegitimate President and a Russian asset DAYS before the goddamn election.
What the literal fuck?
Again, not even comparable to Trump.
Fabricated a dossier that her allies in government used to spy on Trump. Nothing will ever touch that.
"...Vanna white because she has white in her name you racist nazi"
Ha! Me racist! It is Vanna White who is (secretly) racist!!!
Little-known FACTS: She (super-hero style) sometimes slips into a nearby phone booth... And puts on BLACK FACE!!! With the BLACKEST black paint that she can find...
...then she slips out as her "alter Igor" known as... Vanta Black!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack
applause to you to actually read thru that.. if Spaz has more than one short paragraph, I just scroll down...
Spaz, this isnt a joe rogen podcast.
But that's the thing- people like Hillary and Mike Laursen think they're untouchable.
It's past time to change that.
Yes, this was the dirtiest trick ever, but her friends in the media lapped it up and it cost the country millions of dollars and a lot of trust in our institutions. It was a heinous crime. Hillary needs to drink hemlock.
Don’t disagree, but you just changed the subject. It’s not like I’m a fan of Hillary Clinton, so I’m not going to defend her actions.
Says Dee as…she defends Hillary.
Sure, because you constantly give the left unjustified good faith.
That's why you were put into lockdowns.
Wake the fuck up.
Leftists will not tolerate you existing on your own terms.
TL; DR... By those 4 letters, I refute what you say, Oh Short-Attention-Span Avenger!
Very good idea. That TDS-addled spastic asshole is narcissistic enough to hope that someone other than his mommy will winnow through his sewage-treatment-plant overflow in the hopes some bit of intelligence is buried in there?
He deserves a rusty pitchfork up the ass.
The shit-eater is to be muted.
She officially conceded.