37 Comments

Having worked in a GOP state legislature for three decades, I learned to work with Rule 1 of politics: Sometimes you lose. It's like the law of gravity, it can't be avoided or changed, no matter how much magical physics you gin up in the Star Wars/Star Trek/Marvel writers room.

When you lose, and you will, you suck it up, try to learn what went wrong, then come back and win the next time. In the meantime, you have the one luxury of the minority--the ability to attack constantly and propose wild red-meat programs you know will never get passed. It can be fun, having no responsibility.

I suspect many of the folks still clinging to "Trump won!" are new to politics or found the glorious hero they never had before, so they don't know or can't acknowledge Rule 1. The rest of those folks are politicians or grifters who do understand Rule 1 and are trying to profit off of those who don't.

Expand full comment

When the process has been compromised, simply sucking it up does nothing to alleviate the compromise and the potential for future compromise.

Expand full comment

Compromised how? Provide some evidence, please.

Expand full comment

Start with the far more widespread use of mass-mailed ballots and absentee applications ... as opposed to the usual opt-in "handshaking" associated with the absentee process ... promoted in the name of COVID. Even if legally authorized, it diminishes the integrity of the election, by not providing enough safeguards to prevent ballots delivered to addresses where the voters have moved, or died and others could submit that ballot "on their behalf".

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada were states where these techniques were used. Other states have used mail-in voting in the past ... but states like Washington are so one-sided politically that fraud would not be evident, so those are not reliable indicators of the integrity of a mail-in voting process.

In Michigan, this change was implemented unilaterally by the Secretary of State ... not by the state legislature, to whom this authority is delegated by the U.S. Constitution. In other states like Pennsylvania, executive officials and judges went around their state legislatures to change the rules in other ways, as well.

Expand full comment

It was a fun ride, that I thought would end. I was happy for Joe Biden because the I thought this would all be over. I blame those in the media (on both sides) who took, and are taking this way too far.

Expand full comment

In the strictest sense he lost, but if we were still a nation of laws he would have won in a landslide. I am far from ready to acknowledge defeat.

Expand full comment

"We have has a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed. While we should have a larger conversation in the near future about a broader strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers HRC, for this we think we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie."

That Maggie Haberman?

Expand full comment

I'm not hearing DJT say this. I'm hearing nervous people spread this about DJT.

Expand full comment

Well yes, Trump lost. He's not going to be president again unless he wins a different election. I'm a conservative and know lots of conservatives, but I don't personally know of any who think that Biden can be replaced by Trump midterm. I think you're using a strawman, Sean. The reason people like me still want the 2020 election investigated is to reveal any shenanigans (Biden would like that word) that may have been pulled in order that we can clean up the process enough to ensure that the next election is more secure. Even in the unlikely event that 2020 was as clean as the wind driven snow, the perception that it was not is a danger to our republic. I want sunlight to reveal everything, for better or worse.

Expand full comment

Do a lot of people believe he can be reinstated? Is he playing to them? I just assumed this was some sort of secret source slander to make both him and his supporters look stupid and silly. (Obvious reply: not that they need the help. Yeah, yeah. Certainly true anecdotally, but not for the wide swaths of his supporters IMO).

Remember: this is the NYT "reporting" on Trump, so slander is to be assumed.

Expand full comment

You should know that Haberman is a hard-core Democrat that has a history of making stuff up.

Expand full comment

Let's review how we got here ...

> This election was compromised by officials not authorized to change the rules, changing them in key areas of this nation ... and by officials who conducted the tabulation of the votes with significant "irregularities" that are being ignored by the officials they report to.

> The burden of proof is not on the “losing” parties to prove fraud – it is on the officials who conducted the election to conclusively prove it was fair and honest, in the face of those compromises and other irregularities in the process, such as playing games with the monitoring of vote counting.. And the government (as opposed to its operatives re: criminality) is not entitled to the presumption of innocence.

> That conclusive proof, in the face of multiple irregularities, has NOT been forthcoming … “because we say so” or “you lack standing” is NOT proof. This is where the courts in particular fell down on the job.

> This election was so compromised that conclusive proof of its honesty was beyond reach … Congress should have refused to certify the Electoral College results, and sent it into the House for resolution.

> But our leaders in two of the three branches, and in many of our states, tried to duck the above and pretend everything was all right. They valued the reputation of their institutions … and/or the expedient repudiation of Orange Man Bad … more than they valued treating their constituents with honesty and integrity.

Should actual proof of fraud come out, it will now shake this nation to its core, for we are in uncharted territory when it comes to finding an election illegitimate after inauguration. And that could have been avoided, had our leaders adhered to Constitutional requirements and processes – both before the election to avoid the compromises, and once the compromises became evident.

This is the elephant in the room, that shall not be named – much less discussed – according to Big Tech, the media, and the Powers that Be. But the Tarkin Effect applies to their efforts here.

Expand full comment

I have no doubt that Democrat cheating in key constituencies stole the election from Donald Trump. I also have no doubt that there exists no mechanism to reverse the results of the election that doesn't permanently destroy the peace. We must accept this unjust result and undo it at the polls, but this cannot be done if the Democrats are allowed to alter voting in this country n a way that guarantees them the ability to cheat ad infinitum.

Expand full comment

"I have no doubt that Democrat cheating in key constituencies "

Really? No doubt? Let's look at a huge swing state, Pennsylvania, which went for Biden after going for Trump, Republicans absolutely destroyed the Democrats in every other way. The state House GOP majority gained 2 seats, when they had worried about losing more than twice that. The state Senate GOP majority was maintained at the same level as before. Republicans won two out of the three statewide row offices: Auditor General and Treasurer. They hadn't won Auditor General since 1996, and they defeated an incumbent Democratic Treasurer with huge Philly name recognition.

Tell me this: Why would the Ds steal the election for Biden in Pennsylvania, but fail to also steal the state legislature and all the row offices, especially since we're coming into congressional redistricting, which the legislature controls? Explain that. Is it incompetent theft, or just maybe there wasn't any theft?

Expand full comment

Perhaps you're not smart enough to understand an answer. To be brief, Penn elected all those R's, and you think the same people voted for dopey joe Biden? Give us all a break.

Expand full comment

Stealing one election by flooding a few friendly counties is a lot easier than stealing 100.

Expand full comment

"Explain that."

Okay. Let me try.

The Democrats do not control the counting in every constituency in PA.

So, they can run up the score as much as they want in their stronghold districts and it has no effect outside of them. In other words, they didn't steal State and Federal Legislative seats because they had no way to do it.

So let me spell out how they could steal a Presidential election and somehow not also steal other races down the ballot.

The lower part of a ballot varies widely across municipalities districts and precincts, but the layout for statewide races at the top with the Presidential (and Senate) race(s) is typically consistent across a county.

So what very likely happened on Election Day 2020 and the days following was local Democrat election officials in a number of strategic counties (Fulton, Dane, Wayne, Clark, Philadelphia, etc.) simply delivered tens of thousands of phony ballots to the counting venues, which were completely under their control. They even staggered and stutter-stopped their counting to let the rest of the state finish reporting their results, which, of course, allowed them to find out the margins they needed to overcome and get the fake votes they needed manufactured.

Given the volume and the time constraints between November 3 - 12, it's impossible that these extra ballots were produced by hand. The manpower, and the associated security risk (from loose lips to blackmail) to manually shade in 50,000+ ballots in a matter of days means they must have used machines.

Which indicates that there was a small group of partisan operatives with printers/copiers, blank ballots and templates on computers to produce however many votes were needed and local officials that would bring them in when GOP observers were (for whatever reason e.g. kicked out, 3:00am delivery, etc.) absent.

In minutes - with a scanner and MSWord - you can create a template to place a dot exactly where the box or oval for a preferred candidate(s) would be, and from that you can effortlessly run thousands of ballots through printers and copiers to produce as many as needed.

This also explains why there are so many ballots with votes only in the Presidential or Presidential and Senate races.

Expand full comment

Is it really that far fetched that a bunch of Trump hating liberals in various states, took it upon themselves to commit election fraud? Liberals would burn your city to the ground if it was (in there mentally ill mind) for the greater good. Therefore, of course there was wide spread voter fraud, committed by various Trump hate infused liberals. It’s the amount that is in question.

Expand full comment

To say that Biden was awarded the Presidency and that Trump will not be reinstated is a very different thing from saying that Trump lost the election. There are far too many inconsistencies and irregularities to be confident of the latter. None (essentially) of the court challenges was investigated or adjudicated - they were dismissed for lack of standing or as unripe or moot - which is what judges do when they don't want to touch something with a ten-foot pole. The local Democrats in Fulton and Maricopa Counties and elsewhere are acting guilty as hell. The reason we need to know the truth about 2020 is in order to safeguard 2022, 2024, and on and on. The alternative is to resign ourselves to living in the Progressive Paradise, and we know how that turns out.

Expand full comment

Trump has won something like 60–70% of his election lawsuits that have actually seen the inside of a courtroom

Expand full comment

Trump acknowledged defeat. End of story.

Expand full comment

Did he?

Expand full comment

Not upset. Don't hate you. Just curious about your thinking. Are you certain that there was insufficient fraud and illegality to have thrown the election? If so, how do you come by that certainty? Are you instead (or both) certain that, inspite of any subsequestion showing of illegality, the election could never be overturned. If so, how do you come by that certainty? Is it something else that you are certain about?

Expand full comment

Having heard several interviews with the former president recently, I highly doubt he is saying anything of the kind. In the interviews, he regularly discusses considering running again in 2024.

Expand full comment

1. He lost

2. The media have an outsized influence on our elections

3. Covid tanked him

4. All we can do is let the media discredit themselves and win in 2022 and 2024.

Expand full comment

I am reminded of King James II of England (VII of Scotland). His late brother King Charles II doubted his brother's capacity to rule and told his closest friends James wouldn't last three years. When Charles II died in February 1685 James II succeeded him and was immediately faced with Monmouth's rebellion--which was put down. But within months many became doubting James and suspected him of trying to become an absolute ruler and force his Catholicism (this was before Sovereigns had to be C of E (1702)). By June 10 and the suspicious "birth" of a son known to history as "The Old Pretender" his kingdoms were seething. The loss of the court case in The Trial of the Seven Bishops on June 30 wherein a jury declared that "it was not a seditious libel to claim that it was NOT the law of England that the sovereign had the power to suspend Acts of Parliament" started James' slide from power. On November 5th (a date ever to be remembered!) his nephew and son-in-law William of Orange along with James' daughter Mary and a Dutch army landed to contest the "birth" of the Old Pretender. James' support rapidly melted away and by December 1688 he had fled England. In January 1689 Parliament declared William & Mary joint sovereigns.

This is all known as The Glorious Revolution. So it all has happened before--read up on it those of you who don't know of it! If Biden really makes a mess of things and the Democrats dig their heels in to force a Bolshevik Petrograd October 1917-type of revolution then anything could happen. Even a Convention of States at which it not only sets up amendments for approval but also sets up a provisional temporary ruler--something like that is what the English did in January 1689--they even have an official interegnum period wherein they have never settled who was king for about a month! As I said--read up on it!

No, Trump won't be re-installed in August. Later perhaps, but not August 2021. August 2023 maybe--if Biden is still alive. Conceivably if things go very wrong in America--military defeats in Asia (China takes Taiwan and attacks Japan), Russia takes the Ukraine, and the Mid-East (Israel is attacked by Iran); rampant food and fuel shortages and vast inflation domestically while a Merrick Garland is bent on instituting Administrative Law to sideline and supplant the Judicial process (something called Extreme Chevron Deference); if with all that a Biden-Harris administration decides to force things and overwhelm its opposition, the American people could rise in revolt and with their backs to the wall the Democrats could try to do an all-out Leninist-style brutal takeover of America.

But if Biden fails, there is further precedence in the history of the Dutch Republic. One reads of how when Louis XIV of France invaded Holland in 1672 the then pro-French government of the de Witt brothers was overthrown. The de Witts were killed--lynched--and their bodies torn apart. One of the brothers had his liver torn out and nailed to a post in the public marketplace.

I don't know if we will come to that--but it HAS happened before!

Expand full comment