Nevertheless, Giuliani plowed ahead Tuesday, needling an opposing lawyer by calling him “the man who was very angry with me, I forgot his name.”
He mistook the judge for a federal judge in a separate Pennsylvania district who rejected a separate Trump campaign case: “I was accused of not reading your opinion and that I did not understand it.”
And he tripped himself up over the meaning of “opacity.”
“In the plaintiffs’ counties, they were denied the opportunity to have an unobstructed observation and ensure opacity,” Giuliani said. “I’m not quite sure I know what opacity means. It probably means you can see, right?”
“It means you can’t,” said U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.
“Big words, your honor,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani acknowledged in court that a portion of the lawsuit had been “mistakenly” removed and, under questioning by Brann, that the lawsuit did not actually allege election fraud, despite his claims about it.
The Democrats accepted election results immediately. Hilary made a concession speech.
The first sentence of her speech: “Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.”
"We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought.
But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future.Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.
As for failure to motivate the troops, she won the popular vote by about 2.1%, almost 3 million votes.
You see the 2020 situation as “completely identical?”
Obama invited Trump to the White House the next day and Trump visited November 10 where Obama said “My No. 1 priority in the next two months is to try to facilitate a transition that ensures our President-elect is successful.”
Obama told Trump: “If you succeed, the country succeeds,” as the two men sat in high-backed chairs in front of the fireplace in the Oval Office.
Michelle Obama also invited Melania to the White House and gave her a tour and answered questions about how things were handled.
Not only that, Biden welcomed Mike Pence and wished him success just a couple days after the election:
Looks like typical NY harassment to me, and I say that from a tax perspective. Why wouldn’t consulting expenses be deductible? I thought Trump was so good at evading taxes (NYT tells me he only pays $750/year), why would he be shifting taxable income from his business onto Ivanka where she would have to pay wage taxes on it at a higher rate than him? Makes no sense, never mind they had over 3 years to consider this and hadn’t decided to audit him til now? They have to claim fraud or else the statute of limitations would have run out for a routine audit. It’ll come to the same as those Russian collusion and Kavanaugh gang rape accusations, just you wait.
“the ongoing probe is examining whether Giuliani is wittingly or unwittingly part of a Russian influence operation, according to people briefed on the matter.”
You are correct, there is a very distinct difference in challenging the results, and carving yourself out from the results. One is attempting to ensure an accurate tally (no matter how misguided you may think the claims may be), the other is throwing a tantrum regardless of the accuracy of the tally. One intentionally creates divisiveness over not liking the result, the other is an attempt to maintain unity by ensuring an accurate result.
“Not my president” was a not so subtle declaration of civil war.
Thus why it is so essential not to just tell everyone this was a secure election, but show them it was a secure election. Because the ones saying “Just trust us, it was secure” are the same ones who just effected a coup if it wasnt secure.
You may have English as a second language, but that’s OK, nothing wrong with that.
Not THE president would have been disputing the final results of the election. Not my president indicated that he didn’t represent those voters’ values and that they thought he was unlikely to act in the interests of the country as a whole (including them), which the past four years has shown to be the case that they were absolutely correct. Trump only cares about Trump and no one else.
The majority was optimistic after the election in 2016 and had believed Trump would may have actually acted in the interests of the country after he was inaugurated – Until he demonstrated beyond doubt that that was not the case. There are artifacts of this situation evidenced in approval polls which were actually net positive even through a few weeks AFTER the start of his term. Then his actions while in office drove them down.
Not a fan of his show but he’s got a point. Why would they not give the evidence maybe exclusively to Fox to boost their ratings? Why hold back the evidence from being presented in courts if it’s “pouring in” and makes such a strong case? Everybody would love to see it - ok maybe not every Democrat -, but it’d need to be out in the open to show who did it, how it was done, how many votes were allegedly flipped, then get the right results and also devise strategies to make sure this could not happen again.
It’s utterly self-defeating to withhold it if they have actual evidence beyond alleged testimony of a few people who think they saw something suspicious. What’s to be gained by this IF they’ve got anything of substance? The constant dancing around presenting the evidence in court or even to friendly media is making the point better than anything that the challenges have no real merit and are only a face-saving appeal in the court of public opinion rather than in courts of law. The result is undermining public confidence in integrity of the election and our democracy while making us look like idiots for entertaining clowns at position of power in the country. If you’ve got anything, just show what you’ve got or shut up already!
PS. The shut up part was not directed to Bend3r but to Powell, Guliani and Co., just to be clear.
I agree with that sentiment. Although the current narrative seems to focus on proving a negative: “Show me that the election was not insecure like I claim it was.” We all know the near impossibility to prove a negative which plays into conspiracy theory growth. The closest thing we can get to it is failure to present any convincing evidence of widespread fraud. But I have the feeling that even that won’t satisfy some.
So how would you go about proving that the election was not insecure? Run independent integrity checks on the software and/or hardware? Ask to have access to source code that is likely proprietary? I assume some of this was done long ago when validating the voting systems. What else?
The other thing that puzzles me is this. If the software could flip votes stealthily, why not flip votes of other races too? Dems were dying to win a Senate majority and extend majority in the House. Neither of these things happened by and large but why did it not? If I were to hack machines to flip votes, I’d have flipped other races as well. The Dominion machines were present in 28 States, it wouldn’t have been too hard to influence just enough races to make it happen, especially if you made it look like the results mirrored the pre-election polls.
Yeah, I’ll just simply disagree with this. To say he doesnt represent you is inherently stating that either he isnt the ‘real’ president or you arent an American.
The way I saw it, its main goal was to present Trump as an illegitimate president. In a way, it was payback for Trump’s birtherism against Obama. Now Trump is at it again with these conspiracy theories to undermine Biden’s legitimacy.
An eye for an eye and pretty soon the entire world will go blind?