Nunsuch Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 Have you even read the indictments of Donald Trump? They explicitly say--at least #3 and #4--that he is perfectly free to SAY whatever he wants. The indictments are for action, not speech. As for your "most of the Democratic Party would be in jail," that's just absurd hyperbole--and I suspect you know it. Of course Biden assumed office. But Trump refused to participate, and is the only ex-president to have acted in that fashion. And he still does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 11 hours ago, Nunsuch said: he is perfectly free to SAY whatever he wants. And whatever he says will be taken out of contacts, distorted, twisted and used against him. Virtually , all the charges against trump are political and designed to prevent him from running for office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 29, 2023 Author Share Posted August 29, 2023 If the election was fraudulent, then Trump should not have conceded. This statement is true morally, legally, and intellectually. From a Catholic moral standpoint, had Trump conceded, he would have committed a sin, if he truly believes the election was fraudulent (whether or not it actually was). Regardless of his religious affiliations and sympathies, this remains true. Moreover, if the 2020 election was fraudulent enough, then all of these indictments and charges are immoral and illegal in themselves. Half of the population seems to believe the election was stolen. Even people who don't support Trump believe it was stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 29, 2023 Author Share Posted August 29, 2023 On 8/27/2023 at 1:29 PM, Nunsuch said: Donald Trump didn't even have the decency https://time.com/5778099/pelosi-trump-speech-rip/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 On 8/28/2023 at 8:58 PM, Nunsuch said: The indictments are for action, not speech Imagine being prosecuted and being unable to speak out, proclaim your innocence and show why the case against you is unfair. On Aug. 4, special prosecutor Jack Smith asked the court for an order to gag former President Donald Trump from discussing the evidence the government plans to use against him or even criticizing the government’s lawyers. Prosecutors are required to show the defendant all evidence that will be presented in the trial, but Smith is refusing to do so until Trump is gagged. On 8/27/2023 at 3:29 PM, Nunsuch said: Those are at least a few "diffs." Sheesh! Trump did not try to overturn an election. He contested a fraudulent election in the courts and in the legislature. Democrats have likewise contested elections but never gotten prosecuted. How did Trump prevent the transfer of power? He left office and Biden was sworn in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 31, 2023 Author Share Posted August 31, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunsuch Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 On 8/30/2023 at 8:25 PM, little2add said: Imagine being prosecuted and being unable to speak out, proclaim your innocence and show why the case against you is unfair. Trump did not try to overturn an election. He contested a fraudulent election in the courts and in the legislature. Democrats have likewise contested elections but never gotten prosecuted. How did Trump prevent the transfer of power? He left office and Biden was sworn in. Read the indictment for the Jan 6 case. I repeat--NO ONE is "unable to speak out." That is explicitly stated in the indictment. Have you read it? This is now the fourth time I've said this. As for the other: The election was NOT fraudulent. Do you mean what Trump (with no evidence whatsoever) continued to claim? He didn't like the outcome. That's fine. There have been many elections where I haven't liked the outcome. I did not claim they were "stolen." ADULTS learn to deal with disappointment. So let me correct your statement: "He contested (and is still contesting) an election he asserted without any evidence was fraudulent. He went to the courts, where 60 of 61 cases resulted in rulings that he didn't like. Of course he didn't prevent the transfer of power. That would be treason. He did, however, do what no previous president has done and refused to go to the inaugural of his successor. That is petulant, and literally unAmerican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 9 hours ago, Nunsuch said: Of course he didn't prevent the transfer of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted September 1, 2023 Author Share Posted September 1, 2023 Not allowed to present evidence is not the same thing as not having evidence. There is a ton of evidence. 18 hours ago, Nunsuch said: That would be treason. Only if the election was not stolen. It would be patriotic if the election was stolen. 18 hours ago, Nunsuch said: I did not claim they were "stolen." I guess you're not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton then. Or 300 million + American citizens. Because just about everyone in the country believes that either the 2016 election was stolen, or the 2020 election was stolen, or both. 18 hours ago, Nunsuch said: He did, however, do what no previous president has done and refused to go to the inaugural of his successor. That is petulant, and literally unAmerican. False claim. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/01/08/trump-first-outgoing-president-skip-inauguration-152-years/6596286002/ Are you saying John Adams and John Quincy Adams were unAmerican? Is it as unAmerican as tearing up a state of the union speech immediately after the speech while still live on air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted September 1, 2023 Author Share Posted September 1, 2023 (edited) As of March, 2021 (not current) - Trump's team had won 14/21 cases where the courts actually looked at evidence of election fraud. Most of the rest ended up being just dismissed without looking at any evidence whatsoever. Obviously since then much has happened. Quote There are 83 court cases to date based on the 2020 election In 26 cases President Trump was the plaintiff In 53 cases President Trump is not the plaintiff In 4 cases President Trump is the defendant 21 cases have been decided on their merits President Trump/GOP won 14 of the 21 cases decided on the merits Most of the cases were never looked at by the court 18 cases remain active https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/exclusive-accurate-list-2020-election-fraud-cases-shows-83-cases-total-18-still-active-president-trump-gop-prevailed-14-21-cases-decided-merits/ By November 2020, the list of credible allegations of election fraud was enormous: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/complete-list-suspected-fraud-issues-2020-election-sorted-state-recommended-actions-address/ This is not a comprehensive list, but is nevertheless overwhelming. Edited September 1, 2023 by fides' Jack clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted September 1, 2023 Author Share Posted September 1, 2023 Also see this video: This IS evidence - very, very strong evidence. It has been dismissed by those with an agenda and those who really don't care about the truth. To suggest there is no evidence is extremely dishonest at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunsuch Posted September 2, 2023 Share Posted September 2, 2023 16 hours ago, fides' Jack said: Also see this video: This IS evidence - very, very strong evidence. It has been dismissed by those with an agenda and those who really don't care about the truth. To suggest there is no evidence is extremely dishonest at best. You are seriously posting the pillow guy as credible evidence of anything? Citing "Gateway Pundit" and Mike Lindell as credible sources will not persuade anyone who is not already so deeply enmeshed in the pro-Trump agenda as to be unmovable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted September 3, 2023 Share Posted September 3, 2023 On 9/2/2023 at 9:35 AM, Nunsuch said: pillow guy as credible evidence of anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted September 3, 2023 Author Share Posted September 3, 2023 On 9/2/2023 at 7:35 AM, Nunsuch said: Citing "Gateway Pundit" and Mike Lindell as credible sources will not persuade anyone who is not already so deeply enmeshed in the pro-Trump agenda as to be unmovable. "For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy, 3:4 What possible proof of widespread election fraud would naysayers believe? There is none. No proof could possibly exist that would make them believe. They are beyond the force of eyewitnesses, email trails, money trails, and even full confessions. So long as CNN says it wasn't so, they will likewise follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted September 5, 2023 Share Posted September 5, 2023 (edited) On 9/2/2023 at 9:35 AM, Nunsuch said: Mike Lindell as credible sources his expertise is no more relevant that yours, you know! Edited September 5, 2023 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now