Blees your pea pick'n heart as well.Bless your little heart.
Plenty of proof he was paid off, but you need to be smart enough to get it. I will simplify it for you, a book deal is by it very nature being paid to say something…
Is a book deal not being paid to say something? Why did you leave out that he is currently hawking a book“coming out on March 12.” in your original post? Is it not common knowledge that if one was just a fly that landed on Trump’s arm that a payment via book deal from the left is available to those that dish out dirt on all things Trump?Blees your pea pick'n heart as well.
So he had a book deal in advance to say that he found no evidence in case Trump's campaign hired him to investigate evidence of voter fraud. Show your work that he had such a deal.
What? This does not make any sense. I’m talking about the language you used here. I don’t know what you’re saying. Please rephrase so I can figure out what you’re saying. Maybe throw in some punctuation.
Let’s be clear about what we’re both calling Kraken. I’m calling it that as shorthand to refer to all the incredible claims made about the election. Sidney Powell. The CIA thing. Etcetera.
Yes it was the data presumably proving election hacking/fraud.Personally I believe this is information is the Kraken
you were so devastated it did not materialize that it made you butt hurt against any that reported its existence…
Prosecutor at trial: Did you find any evidence the defendant was not guilty?Apparently, there were two firms that the Trump campaign hired and they both reported their findings to the Trump campaign.
Second Trump-hired firm found 2020 fraud claims were ‘all false’
A second firm hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud in the 2020 election said all of Trump’s fraud claims were false, the firm’s founder told The Washington Post The Trump campaign hired…thehill.com
A similar firm, Berkeley Research Group, was hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud claims. Like Simpatico, Berkeley did not find evidence of fraud or that the election was stolen.
So Sympatico was the second firm hired by the campaign that reported it found no widespread evidence of voter fraud."
It appears that his firm came to the same conclusion that the 1st one did. I suppose they both had book deals "to lie and or and were paid off." in exchange for their findings.
Plenty of proof he was paid off? Okay. I’ll listen. But, lots of people write books. But if it’s in terms if a conflict of interest that would tend to go against his credibility rather than evidence of being paid off.Bless your little heart.
Plenty of proof he was paid off, but you need to be smart enough to get it. I will simplify it for you, a book deal is by it very nature being paid to say something…
Trump's legal team: Guess we will not be putting the two firms on the stand that we hired who both came to similar findings Independant of each other neither of whom could corroborate our claims of fraud on a large scale at the end of their investigations.Prosecutor at trial: Did you find any evidence the defendant was not guilty?
Policeman on the witness stand at trial: I found no evidence the defendant is not guilty.
Prosecutor: Then the defendant is definitely quilty.
It is ridiculous that this means anything and certainly not what is being implied. Like taking a car with a problem to a mechanic and since the mechanic cannot find the problem saying no problem exists. Nope, just proof the mechanic couldn’t find the problem.
Exactly! I mean Trumpe wrote a book!WE DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD THAT HAS ABSOLUTE PROOF.
We live in a world of narratives. This guy is selling a book deal. The last has shown us that book deals are notoriously crafted for sales not truth. It takes intelligence to navigate the world of narratives and those waiting on proof will not have what they are looking for until they are being herded onto the boxcars…
I would say the conflict of interest would have been if the guy had a book deal first and then accepted the job of analyzing fraud data that the Trump campaign hired him to do.Plenty of proof he was paid off? Okay. I’ll listen. But, lots of people write books. But if it’s in terms if a conflict of interest that would tend to go against his credibility rather than evidence of being paid off.
I’m not obsessed with GWP. They’re just not credible. When I say CNN is not credible do you accuse me of being obsessed with them? Not that we would have that come up on INGO. No one cites CNN here. But a lot of Trumpers cite GWP here. Which is why you might see me picking on them more. I also picked on ‘trunews’. No one cites them anymore. Guess everyone figured out it’s mostly partisan ********.Yes it was the data presumably proving election hacking/fraud.
It seemed back then you too were hoping it true and when it did not materialize you went all full on hatred of those outlets that reported it possible. Like your GWP obsession…
That’s not the same thing. The case being made is that Trump knew the election wasn’t stolen but told his supporters it was. So these firms hired to find election fraud and not finding any, and they tell Trump that they didn’t find any, is evidence that he had been told by independent experts that they did not find any fraud.Prosecutor at trial: Did you find any evidence the defendant was not guilty?
Policeman on the witness stand at trial: I found no evidence the defendant is not guilty.
Prosecutor: Then the defendant is definitely quilty.
It is ridiculous that this means anything and certainly not what is being implied. Like taking a car with a problem to a mechanic and since the mechanic cannot find the problem saying no problem exists. Nope, just proof the mechanic couldn’t find the problem.
Exactly this. The Trump campaign commissioned the first firm Berkeley Research Group to investigate vote fraud and when they didn't get the results that they wanted they buried that report and commissioned a second firm, Sympatico to do another investigation which ultimately came to a similar conclusion so that report was buried as well to keep them both from the public.That’s not the same thing. The case being made is that Trump knew the election wasn’t stolen but told his supporters it was. So these firms hired to find election fraud and not finding any, and they tell Trump that they didn’t find any, is evidence that he had been told by independent experts that they did not find any fraud.
That does not Prove Trump believed it. But it does go towards the idea that he was told by two independent firms that they did not find what Trump was hoping to find.
But did they ask Ingo? It's pretty obvious where the problem lies on here.Apparently, there were two firms that the Trump campaign hired and they both reported their findings to the Trump campaign.
Second Trump-hired firm found 2020 fraud claims were ‘all false’
A second firm hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud in the 2020 election said all of Trump’s fraud claims were false, the firm’s founder told The Washington Post The Trump campaign hired…thehill.com
A similar firm, Berkeley Research Group, was hired by the Trump campaign to investigate fraud claims. Like Simpatico, Berkeley did not find evidence of fraud or that the election was stolen.
So Sympatico was the second firm hired by the campaign that reported it found no widespread evidence of voter fraud."
It appears that his firm came to the same conclusion that the 1st one did. I suppose they both had book deals "to lie and or and were paid off." in exchange for their findings.
So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.I just wanted to add to my previous post that it's perfectly fine for them to want to get a 2nd opinion by commissioning another investigation, happens all the time. No issue there.
Where the problem starts to materialize is when they received the second independent report that pretty much fell in line with the first report the Trump campaign basically said **** it, disregarded and buried both to keep it from the public and carried on with their fraud claims like neither even existed.
Now it can potentially come back to bite them in the backside if and when this evidence is presented in a court case against then.
I for one think this is an eye opining development unheard of here until I dared to post about it, and was basically maligned by one particular member for doing so.
I can understand why some here might want all this to be buried.as well.
Anyway, I've more that spoken my piece about it and defended myself so I'm intending to take a respite but that doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to engage further in the future if I'm maligned again. That **** just sticks in my craw..
What's an official position? They're investigators, who were paid… toSo, just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.
You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…
So Trump and company hired people and aid them a lot of money to do a job that they weren't capable of doing? They did it not once, but twice. I don't think that is the defense you think it is.So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.
You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…
Are you not posting the best perspective you can? Is it true that they’re fickle? Is it really fickle not to support liars?So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.
You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…
Ok Mike. You once again are postulating trying to fabricate scenarios to say anything is plausible to post the most positive perspective. I can play this game too.So just what access to actual evidence did these investigations have? They have no official position. Is it not plausible that they sold Trump and the campaign that they could find the evidence but found they had no, or could not get access to the any evidence? You provide no reason for why they found no evidence, just that they didn’t. They could just be perpetrating a rip off and now are selling it out to the left for book deals.
You are once again, posting the worst perspective you can. This is why republicans lose, their supporters are fickle and do not support them. They take the crap like this from the MSM like free candy…