Tucker showing video of the Jan 6th , that has never been shown

Harrycrane said:
Even when we lose ? We really won because you cheated . Pathetic
Click to expand...
screaming the rock GIF by Moana
 
I get that the FBI & DOJ have to use informants to fight crime, but having an informant ON THE DEFENSE team as it engages in a trial? That should get even the "moderates" in America feeling a bit uneasy:

amgreatness.com

Informants Everywhere › American Greatness

After nine weeks of testimony from multiple government witnesses, including FBI agents, the Justice Department finally concluded its case-in-chief in the Proud Boys’ seditious conspiracy trial on…
amgreatness.com amgreatness.com
 
Oh no it's extreme right wing Breitbart reporting on the FBI's actions.

www.breitbart.com

Revelation of FBI Informants Shakes Proud Boys' January 6 Trial

Revelations of the sheer number of FBI informants involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot have shaken a trial of the Proud Boys.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

But then the AP vindicates the Breitbart story so it must be true:

apnews.com

Federal prosecutors reveal Proud Boys witness was informant

A lawyer for one of the former Proud Boys leaders charged with seditious conspiracy says federal prosecutors have revealed that a defense witness was secretly acting as a government informant for nearly two years after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
ProV1 said:
The AP says the FBI has had undercover agents inside the proud boys for years. I would hope so. It is a standard element of policing in organized crime investigations.
Click to expand...
The FBI had one informant participating on the defense team during the trial. Are you okay with that?
 
ProV1 said:
The AP says the FBI has had undercover agents inside the proud boys for years. I would hope so. It is a standard element of policing in organized crime investigations.
Click to expand...
And it's a practice that has been frequently abused over the years. Most agree that when the "informants" are driving the planning and execution of the crime then it's no longer a simple case of helping law enforcement.
 
John Hinderaker nails the real issue here:

There is much more at the link. I won’t try to summarize it all here. Suffice it to say that the real scandal arising from the January 6 protest was not the fact that a handful of demonstrators broke into the Capitol, while many more were freely admitted by guards. Rather, the principal scandal is the manner in which pro-Donald Trump demonstrators have been treated by law enforcement: held without trial in solitary confinement, ridiculously over-charged (e.g., insurrection vs. trespassing), forced to plead guilty to imaginary or over-hyped offenses by the prospect of long jail terms for offenses they never committed, and set up by FBI agents and informants loyal to the Democratic Party who, it seems, may have played key roles in encouraging the demonstration to get out of hand.

If the January 6 protesters had been treated the same as the BLM/Antifa rioters who did more than 100,000 times as much damage, and killed somewhere between 30 and 50 people, they would have been showered with tens of billions of dollars by corporate America as encouragement to keep it up. Instead, they were condemned to solitary confinement.

We may never know what really happened on January 6, 2021, particularly with regard to the involvement of federal agents and informers. But one thing we can say for sure is that the FBI, in anything like its present form, has to go.
 
lotr10 said:
The FBI had one informant participating on the defense team during the trial. Are you okay with that?
Click to expand...
That is a mischaracterization. Nowhere does the AP story say he was on the defense team. It says he was in contact with the defendants and there was a loose reference to having had "contact" with a lawyer. You have no idea what that contact entailed. I am 100% OK with undercover officers working within a terrorist organization. I think you would be too if it was ISIS.

In her court filing, Hernandez said the unnamed informant participated in “prayer meetings” with relatives of at least one of the Proud Boys on trial and had discussions with family members about replacing one of the defense lawyers on the case. The informant also has been in contact with at least one of the defense lawyers and at least one of the five defendants, Hernandez wrote.
 
lotr10 said:
And it's a practice that has been frequently abused over the years. Most agree that when the "informants" are driving the planning and execution of the crime then it's no longer a simple case of helping law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that the informant was "driving" anything? Seems like you just made that up.
 
ProV1 said:
That is a mischaracterization. Nowhere does the AP story say he was on the defense team. It says he was in contact with the defendants and there was a loose reference to having had "contact" with a lawyer. You have no idea what that contact entailed. I am 100% OK with undercover officers working within a terrorist organization. I think you would be too if it was ISIS.

In her court filing, Hernandez said the unnamed informant participated in “prayer meetings” with relatives of at least one of the Proud Boys on trial and had discussions with family members about replacing one of the defense lawyers on the case. The informant also has been in contact with at least one of the defense lawyers and at least one of the five defendants, Hernandez wrote.
Click to expand...
You have to look at all the information. The AP establishes that the FBI had a lot of informants on the Proud Boys before and during the 1/6 riot and that one of the informants has been involved with the defendants as they were planning and executing their defense against criminal charges.

And the AP is clearly reluctant to report on all of the evidence that the informant was involved and/or present when legal discussions were underway. This includes that the informant was going to be called to testify by the defense during the trial. So are you saying that defense lawyers don't discuss the case with a witness they are calling to testify?
 
lotr10 said:
You have to look at all the information. The AP establishes that the FBI had a lot of informants on the Proud Boys before and during the 1/6 riot and that one of the informants has been involved with the defendants as they were planning and executing their defense against criminal charges.

And the AP is clearly reluctant to report on all of the evidence that the informant was involved and/or present when legal discussions were underway. This includes that the informant was going to be called to testify by the defense during the trial. So are you saying that defense lawyers don't discuss the case with a witness they are calling to testify?
Click to expand...
LOL. Put Durham on it. That ought to be great.
 
lotr10 said:
John Hinderaker nails the real issue here:

There is much more at the link. I won’t try to summarize it all here. Suffice it to say that the real scandal arising from the January 6 protest was not the fact that a handful of demonstrators broke into the Capitol, while many more were freely admitted by guards. Rather, the principal scandal is the manner in which pro-Donald Trump demonstrators have been treated by law enforcement: held without trial in solitary confinement, ridiculously over-charged (e.g., insurrection vs. trespassing), forced to plead guilty to imaginary or over-hyped offenses by the prospect of long jail terms for offenses they never committed, and set up by FBI agents and informants loyal to the Democratic Party who, it seems, may have played key roles in encouraging the demonstration to get out of hand.

If the January 6 protesters had been treated the same as the BLM/Antifa rioters who did more than 100,000 times as much damage, and killed somewhere between 30 and 50 people, they would have been showered with tens of billions of dollars by corporate America as encouragement to keep it up. Instead, they were condemned to solitary confinement.

We may never know what really happened on January 6, 2021, particularly with regard to the involvement of federal agents and informers. But one thing we can say for sure is that the FBI, in anything like its present form, has to go.
Click to expand...


Amen
 
ottootto said:
George W. Bush LOST California and New York in 2004 and still won the popular vote.



Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.
Click to expand...
The the answer is to have State legislatures change to strictly proportional allocation.

(has as much chance of passing as the NPVIC)


ottootto said:
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.
Click to expand...

Probably because they knew it would never be ratified by enough smaller states and so they were safe to do so,as to make themselves look good.

:LOL:
ottootto said:

If the 2022 Election Were a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points).​

Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview

“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”

“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”

“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

“I would rather have a popular vote. “

Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote.

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

BALANCE
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

65,983,448 people live in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).

66,300,254 in rural America (20%)

Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.

In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.

19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.

Balance??
Because of statewide winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

2 recent presidents entered office without winning the most national popular votes.

5 of our 46 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight calculated in early September 2020 that for Joe Biden to have just a 50-50 chance of becoming President, he needed to win the national popular vote by at least 3% (over 3 million votes).

A 1% lead in the national popular vote would have given Biden only a 6% chance of becoming President. A 2% lead would have given him only a 22% chance.

Another study showed, in general, there was a 45% chance that a close presidential election could end with the winner of less popular votes becoming President.

Another study warned that 1 out of every 3 presidential elections where the popular vote margin is within 3% will feature a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college.

There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It would have reduced turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.

The system with 2020 election laws meant that the winning 2024 presidential candidate could need a national popular vote win of 5 percentage points or more in order to squeak out an Electoral College victory.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. It has occurred in 5 of the nation's 60 (8%) presidential elections.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one, two, or three states would have elected the second-place candidate in 5 of the 17 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 9 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections since 1988.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

In 2016, Trump became President even though Clinton won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes.

Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.

Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

A different choice by 5,229 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 5,890 in Georgia (16), and 10,342 in Wisconsin (10) would have defeated Biden -- despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million. The Electoral College would have tied 269-269. Congress would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

Each of these 21,461 voters was 329 times more important than the more than 7 million.

The national popular vote winner also would have been defeated by a shift of 9,246 votes in 1976; 53,034 in 1968; 9,216 in 1960; 12,487 in 1948; 1,711 votes in 1916, 524 in 1884, 25,069 in 1860, 17,640 in 1856, 6,773 in 1848, 2,554 in 1844, 14,124 in 1836.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).
Click to expand...

Interesting but.......

All hypothetical and irrelevant because if the contest was a true NPV contest, turnout might be completely different because the campaigns would certainly be completely different..

all of that analysis depends on turnout being exactly the same in all counties

yes??
 
ottootto said:
There is no actual proof of widespread voter fraud in 2020 accepted by any court in the U.S. (with 234 judges nominated by Trump).

“There’s no there there.” - Meadows

There are conspiracy theories that hurt our system of government.
Click to expand...
there is evidence that will never see the light of day due to the nature of the evidence; millions of pieces of paper and envelopes.

once the deed is done it cannot be undone. fait accompli

lesson: cheat better than the other guy the first time or don't complain: it just makes you look like a sore loser
 
ProV1 said:
Lol. Children standing in front of a doorway protesting for their lives.
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it. The videos I've seen show a lot of violence. You know pushing & shoving as they trespassed in the TN State Capitol. Pretty much what most of the 1/6 folks did. But then there are two standards being applied here.
 
lotr10 said:
That's one way to look at it. The videos I've seen show a lot of violence. You know pushing & shoving as they trespassed in the TN State Capitol. Pretty much what most of the 1/6 folks did. But then there are two standards being applied here.
Click to expand...
LOL. Have you no sense of reality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top