Thanks for this.
I hope you get a chance to watch the Hearing committee footage from today. I think you'll be extremely interested in the answers from the Trump campaign staff.
I think everyone is aware Enrique Tarrio wasn't in Washington on January 6th... the indictment against him is that he was organizing beforehand (ie, Jan 3rd) and was in contact with people at the Capitol on Jan 6th via messaging apps. I'll link the source below, Tarrio was involved even though he wasn't there.
Yeah they showed still images of Tarrio and Rhodes together. There were attorneys present. There apparently is video of the meeting which they are not showing just the still images.. The problem is that January 6th wasn't an insurrection of the crowd. I say you could call it an insurrection yet the people that committed it are those on that committee and many people that colluded with them months and even years before January 6th.
Showing me anything from them will I admit be met with extreme bias on my part. Especially if it is snips, clips, and still images.
Keep in mind Adam Schiff who is gleefully there has already been lying for years about evidence he claims to have seen. Yet the evidence it turns out never existed. That means he lied.
Why should I suddenly trust any of these crooks?
I personally think the more important information is what the people under oath are saying in response to the Committee's questions. At this point, what's said under oath is the only thing that's important... and if people are lying under oath then they should absolutely be charged with perjury.
I say you could call it an insurrection yet the people that committed it are those on that committee and many people that colluded with them months and even years before January 6th.
The members of the committee committed a violent uprising against the government of the United States?
The members of the committee committed a violent uprising against the government of the United States?
They have incited it. Just like they claim others have. They have FORCEFULLY incarcerated people for in some cases more than a year without due process. Yet those that they agree with often burn, loot, and yes kill people and are in some cases not pursued at all, in other cases given almost no charges.
It is a very different reaction in U.S. Justice system depending upon you political leanings.
EVERY SINGLE member of that committee has lied and been corrupt in the past in some cases many times. I truly don't care much what show they put on. It is meaningless without full context and they will not give you that.
Hard agree that the U.S. Justice system treats people very differently depending on race, wealth, etc. I think we can both agree that we'd love to see people treated the same regardless of who they are. The U.S honestly has so much work to do in this arena.
What evidence would convince you that the 2020 US election was legitimate?
If you haven't seen it by the way. The evidence presented in 2000 Mules is extremely damning and they haven't done anything to debunk it.
A lot that was found in Arizona was damning. They just ignore it.
Video evidence that we've had since a day or two after the election is damning. Nothing happened to the people on the video and most networks ignore it.
I do see a lot of "it's debunked" without any actual debunking occurring.
It is also usually said by people that are guilty of lying and fabricating for some time now. Expecting me to trust someone who I know lies just because they say "it is debunked" isn't going to work.
I mentioned before that the Hearing from today would be very interesting to you. Former AG Barr talks at length, under oath, about the 2000 Mules film by Dinesh D'Souza. I think you should watch all of today's hearing, but you'll definitely get a lot of out of specifically that bit.
I've seen some of that and Barr is full of shit. He lied and didn't do crap. By the way I added a link in the article. People have been responding to him.
Keep in mind I know people that received 6 mail in ballots at their house. Only one was for themselves. What if they decided to fill out the other 5 and turn it in... that is partially what it appears these Mules have been part of.
The evidence for the fraud is actually OVERWHELMING.
It is simply that those who stole power and their propaganda outlets are busy telling you it doesn't exist or that it is debunked.
They seem to think celebrities or people that didn't do the investigations are sufficient to say it doesn't exist when they don't actually know what they are talking about.
Barr and others claimed it doesn't exist almost immediately without having time or doing ANY investigations.
They also refused to look at some evidence.
I can tell you with 99.999% certainty the election was stolen on a massive level.
Did the people you know vote more than once?
Probably not, right, because that would be committing a felony.
The other 5 ballots were for other people in their household... so your friends would need to forge the signatures well enough to fool the signature verification process.
It's not expected that each of the 6 people in your friend's household visit the ballot boxes individually themselves... one person can put in the ballots of their friends, family and neighbours in the drop boxes perfectly legally.
2000 Mules never looked at the ballots that were dropped off in the ballot boxes, so they can't know that they weren't ballots filled out by different people legally and dropped off by one person. It's also totally legal for one person to do their neighbours a favour and drop of their ballots for them, even if it means the same person is visiting a drop box multiple times. There is no legal requirement that only the person filling out the ballot puts it in the drop box.
I've been perfectly fine with my wife dropping off my vote for me because I trust her. I know she takes it as seriously as I do.
2000 Mules also says that geotracking on cell phones is accurate to 12 inches. I asked a friend about this and he said in his experience it's closer to 16 feet, especially in areas without 5G.
I know we'll disagree on 2000 Mules and that's completely fine. It rings true to you and I'm not persuaded by it at all. I appreciate the effort you've put into answering my questions and I didn't know about 2000 Mules until you shared it. Have a good night.
What evidence would convince you that the 2020 US election was legitimate?
Unrestricted access to information. OPEN investigations in every state where the data is available to everyone.
If they provided that and it showed it was legitimate I suspect most people except a very small minority would believe it.
Instead the investigations that happen find things. Yet we'll have people like Cheney call it debunked when they do absolutely nothing to debunk it. Sorry Liz Cheney... saying "it's debunked" isn't how you debunk something.
I'm not 100% on this, but I assume they can't release all the information until everyone involved is sentenced or acquitted? Hopefully afterwards they release it all to the public so we can see.
If Trump admitted that the 2020 election was legitimate, would that move the needle for you at all?
Have you seen 2000 mules? Did you have any reasonable explanation for the 3am vote avalanche, all for Biden, in various states? Do you think its related? What convinced you, that the election was legitimate, considering all the discrepancies?
If Trump admitted that the 2020 election was legitimate, would that move the needle for you at all?
Nope. I am not a Trump worshipper. I don't agree with a number of things he does or has said. I see him as human. He makes mistakes. He also does good. Overall I'd say he did a good job but, there are things I disagree with him about.
Trump is just a person. So are celebrities.
I've seen enough damning evidence that they have no answer for and they just pretend doesn't exist.
Someone telling me that what I saw doesn't exist will not work.
Watch 2000 Mules. Explain it. Keep in mind their threshold for coming up with the 2000 mules was VERY generous.
At this point after years there are a lot of people that don't trust the DOJ. At this point if they release the information it'd likely end up being more fair and accurate than what occurs in the system today.
They are not acting non-partisan. Lady justice is far from blind like she should be. She sees party affiliation, she sometimes sees skin color, she sometimes sees sexual preference, she sometimes sees wrong think and wrong speech, she often sees religion. She should see NONE of these things if we want our justice system to work.
The Justice system is very broken in the U.S.
It has been corrupted to a large degree by outside of U.S. as well. People like George Soros funding the election of local judges, and such. (on record and known)
We are beyond the "you can't know that because it is part of an ongoing investigation" excuse, or the "it is classified" excuse. They use that about as often as they call things debunked without actually doing any debunking.
Again, I completely agree, Judges at any level shouldn't be partisan. It's wild that any leader or political party can appoint judges, especially when those judges aren't quite qualified for the role they're appointed to.
I think what you're asking for is impossible. No one is going to release information that's part of an ongoing investigation. I'm sure there is lots and lots of information on people who were at the Capitol at January 6 that didn't commit any crimes, those people would be affected by the release of all information, maybe causing them to lose their jobs, etc. The people who are still awaiting their day in court with a jury would be affected if all the information was released. I just don't think it's fair on the defendants, and it's honestly never going to happen until the DOJ has finished with all related cases.
