Connect with us

News

Opinion: New Jan. 6 court filing shouldn’t scare voters. Trump would never do that again!

Published

on

Opinion: New Jan. 6 court filing shouldn’t scare voters. Trump would never do that again!


If you need proof that President Trump and his running mate will honor the result of November’s election, just listen to how peacefully they have accepted the result of the last presidential election.

play

Dear voters who don’t only watch Fox News:

Advertisement

We here at the Donald Trump presidential campaign realize some of you may have heard or read about a new court filing by federal DEEP STATE prosecutors in the Jan. 6 WITCH HUNT case that oh-so-wrongly accuses your favorite president of trying to overturn the 2020 election. 

We want to let you know, from the always-honest mouth of President Trump, that the allegations in this 165-page document are TOTALLY FALSE, and the so-called voluminous evidence presented is not something you should pay attention to or read. And even if it were true – which it DEFINITELY IS NOT – we here at the Trump campaign promise we would never do anything like that a second time around.

Donald Trump would never try to overturn another election – we promise

Does the filing from special counsel Jack Smith accuse President Trump of pursuing “multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted”? Yes, it does. But those are lies – the president used, at most, one criminal means – and the whole thing is ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

Since when do court cases move forward in a way that might be detrimental to the accused’s hopes of becoming president again and shutting down the court case? That seems un-American.

Advertisement

New Jan. 6 court filing reveals details about the plan to deny election results

Does the document detail specifics of this “alleged” plan to overthrow the government? I suppose if that’s what you call this, then sure:

“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office. With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (the ‘targeted states’). His efforts included lying to state officials in order to induce them to ignore true vote counts; manufacturing fraudulent electoral votes in the targeted states; attempting to enlist Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his role as President of the Senate, to obstruct Congress’s certification of the election by using the defendant’s fraudulent electoral votes; and when all else had failed, on January 6, 2021, directing an angry crowd of supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification.”

But you know what those are? Those are a bunch of words strung together into what the liberals want you to believe are “sentences.” And are you really going to trust these so-called sentences to deliver factual information? Of course not.

Those could be migrant sentences Democrats let into this country to steal your way of life.

Advertisement

Did Trump supporters want to hang Mike Pence? Who can really say?

Some in the FAKE NEWS media have focused on one part of the document that details how on that Jan. 6, one of President Trump’s aides “rushed to the dining room” to tell the president that Pence had been taken to a secure location after rioters breached the U.S. Capitol. The aide apparently hoped the president would do something to ensure Pence’s safety.

The document says that President Trump responded: “So what?”

Opinion: Fat Bear Week debuted with a violent death. It’s time to give the bears guns.

First off … TOTAL LIES. But even if that detail about President Trump not caring whether the coward Mike Pence was safe happened to be true, you, the voter, needn’t worry about it.

The only person who should worry is current Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance. (Don’t worry, JD, President Trump would NEVER treat you that way, as long as you do exactly what he says. By the way, what is your noose size?)

Advertisement

Trump is saying the same things he said before the last election

Finally, this probably unconstitutional court filing claims President Trump told advisers before the Election Day in 2020 that he planned to “simply declare victory before all the ballots were counted and any winner was projected.”

The dirty, lying document goes on: “Publicly, the defendant began to plant the seeds for that false declaration. In the months leading up to the election, he refused to say whether he would accept the election results, insisted that he could lose the election only because of fraud, falsely claimed that mail-in ballots were inherently fraudulent, and asserted that only votes counted by election day were valid.”

Opinion: Vance and Walz had civil debate. Trump flung career-damning insults at soldiers.

Advertisement

That is complete nonsense, and the fact that as a reelection candidate President Trump has again been saying those exact things in the months leading up to this year’s election is a strange coincidence you should in no way think is odd or devious.

Just relax, already. You’re being hysterical.

It’s not like Trump and Vance continue to deny the 2020 election results

If you need proof that President Trump and his running mate will honor the result of November’s election, just listen to how peacefully they have accepted the result of the last presidential election.

When Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, was asked by Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz – LOSER! – at this week’s vice presidential debate whether Trump lost the 2020 election, Vance said: “Tim, I’m focused on the future.”

Advertisement

Asked on Thursday by comedian Jason Selvig if Trump won the 2020 election, Vance replied: “Yes.” And when asked again, Vance said: “Yep.”

President Trump himself, during his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, was asked by the moderator: “Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?”

“No, I don’t acknowledge that at all,” he said.

You see? Both men at the top of the GOP ticket have clearly and forcefully accepted the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and the outcome they accept is that President Trump won.

Trust us, America, you have nothing to worry about as long as Trump wins

Faced with such unparalleled honesty and firm grounding in reality and common sense, how can anyone look at Lyin’ Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 court filing – with all its stupid evidence and long string of dumb witnesses willing to testify under oath – and think the Trump campaign would ever try to do something dishonest?

Advertisement

It makes no sense. And it makes even less sense if you don’t read the document, which we at the Trump campaign strongly encourage. Spend your time browsing our online Trump merchandise store. Maybe get yourself a watch or a hat or something.

Just please don’t read that document.

Make America Great Again!

Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on X, formerly Twitter, @RexHuppke and Facebook facebook.com/RexIsAJerk

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Read the Verdict in the Civil Case Against Amber Guyger

Published

on

Read the Verdict in the Civil Case Against Amber Guyger

Case 3:18-cv-02862-M Document 256 Filed 11/20/24
Page 3 of 7 PageID 7099
3. Question 3: Compensatory Damages
What sum of money, if any, would compensate Plaintiffs for injuries they suffered as a result of
Defendant’s conduct?
Claims of Estate of Botham Jean
(a) Mental anguish experienced by Botham Jean
between the time he was shot and his death:
$
2,000,000
(b) Loss of net future earnings by Botham Jean:
$
5,500,000
(c) Loss of Botham Jean’s capacity to enjoy life:
2,750,000
Claims of Allison and Bertrum Jean
(a) The value of the loss of companionship and society
sustained from September 6, 2018, to today
to Allison Jean:
(b) The value of the loss of companionship and society
that, in reasonable probability, will be sustained from
today forward
to Allison Jean:
(c) The value of the mental anguish sustained from
September 6, 2018, to today
500,000
2,000,000
to Allison Jean:
(d) The value of the mental anguish that, in reasonable
probability, will be sustained from today forward
to Allison Jean:
3
$
6,000,000
5,700,000

Continue Reading

News

Russia fires intercontinental ballistic missile at Ukraine for first time

Published

on

Russia fires intercontinental ballistic missile at Ukraine for first time

Stay informed with free updates

Russia has fired an intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, following days of escalation in the conflict.

Ukrainian air defence forces said the missile, which did not carry a nuclear warhead, was fired alongside seven Kh-101 cruise missiles at the southern city of Dnipro.

The use of the ICBM comes after Ukraine launched US-made long-range Atacms missiles and British Storm Shadows at Russian territory in recent days.

Advertisement

Responding to the Atacms strikes, Russia altered its nuclear doctrine to lower its threshold for first use. ICBMs are designed to carry nuclear warheads across continents, by contrast with so-called short- and medium-range missiles.

Their range of thousands of miles is far greater than that of missiles such as Atacms and Storm Shadows, which can travel 250km to 300km.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Russia has previously used nuclear-capable missiles to hit Ukraine, albeit with shorter ranges. Russian forces have repeatedly fired ground-launched Iskander short-range ballistic missiles and the air-launched hypersonic Kinzhal missile, both of which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Ukraine said it had intercepted six of the Russian missiles. It added that the ICBM had been launched from Russia’s southern Astrakhan region. It did not specify what kind of ICBM had been used.

Advertisement

Two people were injured in the attack, according to local authorities.

This is a developing story

Continue Reading

News

Sarah McBride: Republican speaker backs proposal to ban transgender women from women's restrooms in US Congress, Sarah McBride responds | World News – Times of India

Published

on

Sarah McBride: Republican speaker backs proposal to ban transgender women from women's restrooms in US Congress, Sarah McBride responds | World News – Times of India

After House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated support for Republic proposal preventing Trans Congresswoman elected from Delaware Sarah McBride from using women’s restrooms in the Capitol , McBride said that she will use the men’s restroom on Capitol Hill. In her statement, she said that she is not here to fight about bathrooms but to fight for Delawareans.
She added, “I’m not here to fight about bathrooms. I’m here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families. Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them.”

She further said, “This effort to distract from the real issues facing this country hasn’t distracted me over the last several days, as I’ve remained hard at work preparing to represent the greatest state in the union come January.”
She stated, “Serving in the 119th Congress will be the honor of a lifetime and I continue to look forward to getting to know my future colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Each of us were sent here because voters saw something in us that they value. I have loved getting to see those qualities in the future colleagues that I’ve met and I look forward to seeing those qualities in every member come January. I hope all of my colleagues will seek to do the same with me.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated support on Tuesday for a Republican proposal to prevent Representative-elect Sarah McBride, the first transgender woman elected to Congress, from using women’s restrooms in the Capitol. This restriction would take effect when McBride assumes office next year.
“We’re not going to have men in women’s bathrooms,” Johnson told The Associated Press. “I’ve been consistent about that with anyone I’ve talked to about this.”
The proposal, introduced by Republican Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, aims to prohibit lawmakers and House employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” Mace confirmed that the bill specifically targets McBride, who recently won the election in Delaware.
Democrats, including McBride, criticized the Republican initiative, labeling it as “bullying” and a “distraction.”
“This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing,” McBride said. “We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars.”
The debate surrounding bathroom access for transgender individuals has gained significant traction nationwide and was a key point in President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign. Currently, at least 11 states have enacted legislation barring transgender girls and women from using female restrooms in public schools and, in certain instances, other government facilities.
Despite potential challenges, Mace expressed her determination to proceed. “If it’s not,” she said. “I’ll be ready to pick up the mantle.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending