National Review gives a very clear picture that the election was fair and clean.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/12/31/it-must-have-been-stolen/

Essentially, the article shows how deceitful and mendacious the Trump efforts, backed by Republican conspirators, were and still are, full of more poop than a statue in Central Park. Trump fans beware, there are a lot of actual facts along with reasoned analysis. Read at your own risk. 😇

33 thoughts on “National Review gives a very clear picture that the election was fair and clean.

    1. The subpoena is being challenged for time restraints, privacy for voters and because the Republicans are on a fishing expedition.

      The old “if you have nothing to hide” argument from a Libertarian is particularly ironic.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Well, If I were hiding evidence of a felony, I would give some other excuse too.

        Did you expect them to say “We won’t turn over the evidence because we will go to prison if we do”?

        Like

        1. If you got a subpoena to account for all your guns, ammunition supplies and the like to prove they were all legally obtained, you would just say “fine, come on in.”

          Why not, you have nothing to hide.

          PS: what is the evidence that a crime was committed in Maricopa? Judges have looked at the proffered evidence by Trump, Inc’s finest lawyers and found it wanting. Or rather, ridiculous really.

          Liked by 3 people

        1. Possibly. But I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the Trump fanatics are two kinds. Those that can’t read outside the bubble and those that can, but won’t.

          Progress however. Trump fans are past denial and blending into anger and bargaining.

          Except for the Denier in Chief (DIC) in the Oval Office.

          BTW, where is the president? Vaccine roll out, 9 month cyber attack revealed, stimulus battles, COVID going bonkers. Not a peep except to bitch about Hugo Chavez’s ghost of Christmas past slithering through some voting machines.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Remarkable how the GOP. Is silent on an MIA President. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything to compare to a sitting President just stop doing his job his Party just shamefully acquiesce.

            I like the apropos acronym and wondering if “anger and bargaining” represent a stage of grief…

            Liked by 2 people

  1. RE: “National Review gives a very clear picture that the election was fair and clean.”

    I don’t think so. NR offers plausible counter narratives to some of the claims of election theft, but that says more about the quality of the claims themselves (as the article itself defines them) than the real quality of the election.

    Like

    1. After dozens upon dozens of failed lawsuits, from local judges to SCOTUS and Trump’s failed efforts to threaten, bully, extort and bribe state officials from governors to election boards it is hard to give much credence to election chicanery.

      So what is left is a Congressional challenge on January 6.

      Which tells me, and most Americans, that the election was just fine, but the losers are not.

      Meanwhile, we literally have no president except for a man who pops up regularly on twitter to bitch and moan about how unfair the country is treating him.

      And naturally, this ups the donations to his retirement fund.

      This is also a man who is facing lots of legal problems. Not from Biden or even the DOJ. But rather from a few dozen women charging him with rape and defamation. Add in NY charges of bank fraud and tax evasion.

      Think Bill Cosby. It took a few years, but his celebrity status, considerable as it was, did not prevent him from prison.

      Trump is a desperate man. And in his position, that is not a good thing for America.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “After dozens upon dozens of failed lawsuits, from local judges to SCOTUS and Trump’s failed efforts to threaten, bully, extort and bribe state officials from governors to election boards it is hard to give much credence to election chicanery.”

      As I keep pointing out, it is a lie to say that the courts vetted the evidence of election chicanery, and a fallacy to say they proved the election was fair. I suppose we will have to wait decades for scholars to settle the outstanding controversies, but I see no reason to perpetuate fantasies in the meantime.

      Like

        1. My critique is that the post doesn’t support the claim in it’s own title. This is based on the fact that the NR piece doesn’t actually argue that the election was “fair and clean.” It argues only that some of the claims the election was stolen can be rebutted.

          I would love to see a positive defense of the assertion, “The election was clean and fair,” but to date I have never seen even an attempt along those lines.

          Like

          1. Sorry, Mr. Roberts, but you lot are the accusers. It is up to you to provide proof that your FANTASY of a “stolen” election is real. In spite of great efforts to do so, Team Trump has COMPLETELY failed to back up the accusation with ANYTHING other than “alternative facts”

            You want the rest of us to prove the following negative . . . “There was no massive fraud.”

            It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative. However, falling only a little short of proof is the fact that 50 states certified their results. These were Democratic and Republican states. Those certifications are not done lightly. Thousand of people are involved and they would only make these certifications if “The election was clean and fair.”

            It is past time to man up and simply admit that Trump lost – fair and square.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. No, you don’t want evidence or a defense that the election was clean and fair.

            How do I know that?

            Because you have seen it day in and day out, but ignore it. Just like about 15% of our population.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. RE: “It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative.”

            It is not actually impossible, but you might note the NR article takes exactly that approach by attempting to show the election wasn’t stolen. Also, for the record, I have never said that it was.

            In this thread I have challenged the assumption the election was “fair and clean” because I think it is reasonable to do so.

            Like

          4. NR is not proving a negative at all

            “But the evi­dence presented of actual fraud has been persistently underwhelming and often just wrong.”

            NR is merely, and effectively, demonstrating that the evidence presented is crap.

            Essentially a dismissal of crap which for most would be enough, but for those who disagree they can come back with better evidence.

            So far all the Trump, Inc. legal team has done is to shuffle the deck and resubmit the same cards over and over.

            Even the Paxton Pardon Effort (the PPE that was actually delivered) rehashed the Dominion vote conspiracy and the “one in a quadrillion” data unicorn.

            Phony evidence doesn’t improve with repetition except in the minds of Trump supporters. Which was the point of putting the country through a wringer.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “NR is merely, and effectively, demonstrating that the evidence presented is crap.”

            You mean the evidence isn’t valid A negative?

            I’ll revert to my original thought: Plausible counter narratives don’t prove a thing. For example, it is plausible that men can live on the Moon, but in fact none do.

            I’ll await your positive evidence to support the claim the election was “fair and clean.” Until you can, I’ll stick to my skeptical view that the 2020 election was tainted by irregularities that require attention.

            Like

      1. If a judge says he looked at the evidence and found it lacking, I guess you would say he is a liar.

        If 50 judges and the Supreme Courts of both states and the US say the same thing, they are all liars.

        If for no other reason than the actions of Trump since the election with regards to the duties and responsibilities of the office, he is a man we cannot depend upon in a crisis.

        “Trump has left the White House…” and is nowhere to be seen except through cryptic, repetitive, insulting tweets.

        Aside from the most massive cyber attack on his watch, a pandemic killing us 3K+ per day, a stalled relief package, not much happening I suppose. We need a president and we don;t have one because Trump is a quitter in addition to being the biggest loser our country has ever, ever seen.

        You don’t believe there are penguins in the Antarctic do you?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “If a judge says he looked at the evidence and found it lacking, I guess you would say he is a liar.”

          I wouldn’t call him a liar unless he lied.

          RE: “If 50 judges and the Supreme Courts of both states and the US say the same thing, they are all liars.”

          I don’t believe they said the same thing, or even, specifically, that they found the evidence lacking. This issue came up in the Senate hearing the other day: the courts (for any number of reasons) have not vetted the body of evidence in the election lawsuits which came before them this cycle.

          Like

          1. RE: “Vetted meaning…?”

            Tried, or argued in court.

            The Senate hearing noted that none of the 60-odd lawsuits stemming from the election went to trial; all ended because judges ended them over technicalities, as when SCOTUS rejected the Texas case on the basis of standing.

            Like

          2. No. Some might have been technical issues, but many, if not most, were tossed for lack of evidence.

            That is, the evidence presented was crap when examined by a judge and who then questioned the plaintiffs. In questioning is when the judge found out that they were lying, it was hearsay, or just plain stupid.

            If I went to court and said you peed on my lawn, the judge would ask for evidence. If I said I have no direct evidence, but I know he did.

            Next case.

            Many of the judges were conservatives appointed by Republicans including Trump. If there were credible evidence I am sure it would have gone further.

            The current effort by right wing congressmen is just to curry favor with Trump and his fans.

            Do you still not believe that penguins live on the Antarctic?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. There was nothing to vet. Lawyers were offered REPEATEDLY to offer proof of their claims. They had nothing to provide. Therefore, your continuation of this line of argument is MOOT.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I call it “volume litigation”. 50 bogus lawsuits gives the appearance that “there must be something there”.

            Meanwhile, this must be the first time in history that we literally have no president. And in the middle of a pandemic and an economic crisis all we get are inane tweets and threats for martial law and calls for “wild” protests on January 6.

            How many more calls for insurrection does it take to rise to the level of sedition?

            Liked by 2 people

      2. You REALLY need to go back and review my posts concerning the Judge in Wisconsin. Also statements of fact, that when offered the opportunity in PA and other states, to present actual evidence of fraud, the Trump lawyers TOOK A PASS.

        THe courts did vet what was presented. Of course if nothing was presented, there is nothing to vet.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s