The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament

[Ellen Stuttle]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The only thing I know about Durham other than his severe beard is that Q's final post, 22 days ago, was this.

One word.

Durham.

If that was going sour or was a total misfire, I suspect the Q person or people would have put up some other stuff to get attention off this drop.

It's in the hot-seat, the very last drop, and staying there.

My gut tells me that means something. But once again, it's my gut, the whole gut and nothing but the gut.

Michael,

I was going to ask you where you posted that Q drop that said "Durham."

Interesting to hear that it’s still up without an attempt being made to divert attention from it.

However, I don’t buy the idea of Q as being an insider to the Trump administration.  There have been things I've seen posted by Q which exhibit lack of knowledge of significant pieces of significant pictures, for interest the multiple reasons for the Covid pandemic.  Plus there's the Q idea of a One Master when really there are multiple "masters" and not always aligned with one another, ultimately competing with one another.

Anyway, I was plenty interested to see Trump's statement, which I posted, that:

"We’re still waiting for a report from a man named Durham, who I have never spoken to, and I have never met. They can go after me before the election as much as they want, but unfortunately Mr. Durham didn’t want to go after these people, or have anything to do with going after them before the election. So who knows if he is ever going to even do a report."

Ellen
 

[william.scherk]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Doesn't it look like Lin and Sidney are right over the target?

If L Lin Wood and Sidney Powell's efforts can be judged by their successes so far in court, I'd say no. The last couple of days have had a number of legal setbacks. 

Here's one of the Stop the Steal team, Ali Alexander, reporting in via Periscope with a detailed "don't be discouraged" update for  followers:

Direct: https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqxvomZyjlKB

Edited December 5, 2020 by william.scherk
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqxvomZyjlKB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

If L Lin Wood and Sidney Powell's efforts can be judged by their successes so far in court, I'd say no.

William,

Then there should be no problem. Right?

So why are the Biden people's heads exploding about them and why are there so many attempts at censorship?

Hmmmmm?...

I mean, they're losing, right?

They're nowhere near the target, right?

Why do the establishment cronies pay attention to them at all?

 

I think it might be that court cases are won and lost in the end, not in the middle. But, hey, that's just me...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is just for morale.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re Praying Medic's remark (quoted by Michael just above):

"I don't know how this will end, but from what I've learned about POTUS, I suspect it will have a conclusion no one anticipated."

I bet that Trump has had plans up his sleeve for what to do in the event of attempted election theft for some while, maybe even anticipatings before Covid and the push for fraud-inviting mail-in ballots.

Ellen
 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anybody saw the Georgia rally with President Trump, they didn't see a man who lost anything.

He dealt with the election fraud result as if it were a problem to fix, not a contest he lost. And he talked about future plans he intends to implement (implying in his second term), including voter ID and so on.

There were moments when you could almost see his temptation to tell people what was going to transpire. The he would catch himself and back off a bit. But he was nonstop excited and just about as confident as I have ever seen him.

The idea crossed my mind that he kept pounding for people to make a massive voter turnout not just to elect the two Senators, but because he is setting a gigantic trap for the bad guys.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

However, I don’t buy the idea of Q as being an insider to the Trump administration.  There have been things I've seen posted by Q which exhibit lack of knowledge of significant pieces of significant pictures, for interest the multiple reasons for the Covid pandemic.  Plus there's the Q idea of a One Master when really there are multiple "masters" and not always aligned with one another, ultimately competing with one another.

Ellen,

I don't want to argue about whether Q is a thing or not on the Q side. This is because of epistemological method, not because of taking sides. As I've said often, I think Q is a brilliant form of crowdsourcing a marketing campaign that cuts through the censorship of the fake news mainstream media and the Internet tech giants in an unstoppable way.

I understand Q to be one person and many people, to provide great insider information and provide disinformation, to be overly symbolic and to be clear, to be a legitimate Q person or people and to be infiltrated, and so on.

Based on that, I can't make any statement of belief as to whether the people (or better, some people) involved are insiders of the Trump administration. At times, it certainly seems to be that way. At other times, it seems to be smoke and mirrors. So in my view, I bet there are both that come and go at different times. (That, to me, is part of the marketing technique.)

I don't know much about the One Master idea in terms of one organization except for globalism, which I do not consider as an organization or single centralizing party. I haven't seen a One Master idea pumped as a typical Q message, but I might have missed it.

I have seen QAnon comments at times--often actually--that lean toward Satan (or Lucifer), implying that this supernatural evil entity is the one ruler of all the different evil factions on earth. I don't know if Q ever said it that way, but that is the way most Q followers I have read believe.

Anywho, that's neither here nor there. We're all on the same side. I just wanted to comment about "The Epistemology of Q and QAnon" to coin a phrase. Actually, that would make a great book title.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Mark said:

Read about Barr’s corrupt past...

Mark,

If you want a takedown of Bill Barr, I doubt anyone could do it better and be relevant to the current context than Judge Jeanine just did.

This was probably the most blistering and scathing I've ever seen her, especially her closing sentence.

Enjoy   :

That certainly caused me to do a double-take. 

I still think he will come through in the end (probably not because he wants to, but because he will have to due to the massive amount of evidence being collected and presented to the public), but let's see what happens. I guarantee Judge Jeanine is much closer to Trump than Barr ever could be. 

And I bet her words stung.

Michael

[Mark]

Just so it’s clear, I don’t want to “take down” Barr in the sense that I began with that desire.  I’d looked into his history and it’s the history of a gangster-shyster-mouthpiece.   As a consequence, not an initial desire, I want to correct public statements about him being an honorable man.

Thanks for posting the Judge Jeanine Pirro video.

Barr knows precisely what he is doing.  Her words won’t sting him but they might worry him.  He doesn’t want his pretenses exposed.

One criticism: her dig at Sessions as “hiding under his desk for two years”  (quoting from memory, it was something like that).  Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation because he had a conflict of interest.   Trump shouldn’t have fired him for that reason, and Trump was a double-dyed idiot for appointing Barr in his place.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, Mark said:

One criticism: her dig at Sessions as “hiding under his desk for two years”  (quoting from memory, it was something like that).  Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation because he had a conflict of interest.   Trump shouldn’t have fired him for that reason, and Trump was a double-dyed idiot for appointing Barr in his place.

Mark,

This is where you blow it for me.

But, what the hell. To each his own. You're entitled to your misguided opinion.

Wanna run for President some day? I would be interested to see how you would get there.

Or maybe apply for a cabinet position? That way you can teach Trump (and others) how to do his job and stop being so naive and such an idiot.

 

btw - I think Sessions recused himself because he had swamp markers he had to pay off. He's not a stupid man and he had been in the Senate for ages, so he knew how things worked. He knew where bodies were buried and he knew who Mueller and the gang were. He chose to be AG, he wanted to be AG, and he had the pick of any cabinet post he wanted.

I certainly don't see him as naive...

Michael

[Peter]

P,p,p, please! Say it ain't so Joe.

Michael quoted, The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society for producing this.

 . . . . The only Electoral College deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20, at which point President Trump’s first term officially ends . . . . Because the laws governing the conduct of elections were flagrantly violated in numerous states during the 2020 presidential election, there can be no determination of presidential Electors pursuant to state law. As such, the Constitution makes clear that the responsibility rests with state legislatures to appoint Electors. This should be done as expeditiously as possible, but the only deadline state lawmakers have an obligation to meet is the one deadline set forth in the Constitution — noon on January 20, 2021. end quote

From the Daily Wire. Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano laid out a likely scenario — it’d be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “President Trump’s term ends at precisely noon on Jan. 20, 2021. If the Electoral College has not yet named a successor, presumably either Donald Trump or Joe Biden, then whoever is the speaker of the House would become the acting president of the United States,” the judge said last week on Fox News.

[tmj]

Well in that scenario it would be the Speaker of the House, the new congress convenes on Jan 3 , so...maybe Nance

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It won't get that far.

Like I said, I doubt the Supreme Court would allow it to develop to that extent in the case of massive fraud.

If both candidates croaked, that would be different.

And even still, I'm not sure about the Speaker of the House taking over due to election issues. As I understand it, the Speaker becoming President is a chain of succession thing, not an election alternative.

As to Napolitano, I don't know what happened to him. He sold out and I lost interest.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to Napolitano, I don't know what happened to him. He sold out and I lost interest.

Might it have been that Napolitano wanted the appointment that Kavanaugh got?

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Might it have been that Napolitano wanted the appointment that Kavanaugh got?

Ellen

Ellen,

Of course he did (that would be Gorsuch at the time), but that's not enough to turn a libertarian into an authoritarian. Napolitano used to be more libertarian than Rothbard. He even had a show on Fox Business that he lost because it was too libertarian.

I favor a theory that involves something like Epstein, or maybe money, or maybe protecting a family member...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At least somebody is asking.

Michael

[Mark]

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...

This is where you blow it for me.

But, what the hell. To each his own. You're entitled to your misguided opinion.

Wanna run for President some day? I would be interested to see how you would get there.

Or maybe apply for a cabinet position? That way you can teach Trump (and others) how to do his job ...

Sessions was beholden to Trump, so legally he had to recuse himself.

If he had remained, Trump’s eventual exoneration would have been tainted.  His enemies would have yelled quid pro quo.  

MSK says he thinks Sessions was blackmailed into recusing himself.  Why think that?

-oOo-

Right now, in our lifetimes, we are witnessing an attempted coup in the United States of America:
FBI Is Nowhere to be Found
— Rudy Giuliani (video starts at 1:06)

Ellen may well be right.  The state legislatures might save the day.  At least it looks viable in Georgia.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Mark said:

Why think that?

Because it makes sense?

 

[Mark]

There is a ready, simple explanation at hand.  I've given it.

Blackmail is not a sensible explanation without giving good reasons for it. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Mark said:

There is a ready, simple explanation at hand.  I've given it.

Mark,

You gave a talking point and I'm not buying it.

You know it's a talking point, too. You even called it a "ready explanation."

(EDIT: I see you've changed that to "ready, simple explanation." Hell, that's even more like a talking point.  )

Heh...

This is just like the Dem crap they keep throwing out about this election. Present part of the truth as the whole truth and pretend the essential dirt never happened.

Jeff Sessions is not a stupid man. Nor is he delusional.

He knew what was going to go down when he was clamoring for the job before he was sworn in.

Also, you are using the word "blackmail" to spin disagreement with your talking point. I never said "blackmail" nor did I even imply it. I said Sessions had swamp markers to pay off.

In other words, Jeff Sessions is a swamp creature. Maybe a conflicted one, or maybe a Trojan Horse. It doesn't matter. He betrayed President Trump and I will not forget it.

I used to love Jeff Sessions for being the first Senator to endorse Trump. My disillusionment with him happened over a long, long period. It always does with me about people who gain my trust and admiration, but betray and keep acting like they are not betraying. Once it sinks in, I take the lump and accept the reality that the person is deceitful. From that point, I think about him as such and treat him as such. 

You tossing out a talking point and acting as if the matter is settled will not convince me that Jeff Sessions acted with integrity. He didn't. And, from what I have seen, he never even apologized to President Trump for misleading him in the beginning.  

Michael

[ThatGuy]

On 12/3/2020 at 7:26 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It was pizza in the form of ballot-sized paper. They had to run the pizza through the Dominion tabulator machines (as shown on the video) in order to get the pepperoni and oregano portions right.

It was a weird form of preparing pizza, but those four poll workers seemed to like it well enough. After all, they spent hours shoving pizza through those machines.

I think that particular surveillance video is about 12 hours. But no worries. The pizza part only takes a few hours of that, so the poll workers mustn't have been all that hungry.

"Some get the door, it's Dominos..." I guess it really WAS pizza in those boxes...

"Buy 1 vote, get 75,000 free. 4 a.m. deliveries only."
 

https://twitter.com/Walt17470865/status/1335939129234886656?s=20

[ThatGuy]

I dunno...I'm still leaning towards "letters to Santa" being in those suitcases...

 

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/07/no-the-georgia-vote-counting-video-was-not-debunked-not-even-close/

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, you are using the word "blackmail" to spin disagreement with your talking point. I never said "blackmail" nor did I even imply it. I said Sessions had swamp markers to pay off.

Michael,

You did imply that you think Sessions was blackmailed in the way you responded to Mark.

Mark wrote, "MSK says he thinks Sessions was blackmailed into recusing himself.  Why think that?"

You replied by quoting the "Why think that?" part and saying "Because it makes sense?"

This does imply that you accept Mark's description of what you said.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

About Jeff Sessions:

Posted someplace on OL, there's an interview with Trump in which he said (I think) that appointing Sessions is his only regret about things he's done in office.

I don’t remember who was interviewing Trump or who posted the interview.  Probably Michael posted it, since a transcript was provided.

Does anyone remember?

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Michael,

You did imply that you think Sessions was blackmailed in the way you responded to Mark.

Mark wrote, "MSK says he thinks Sessions was blackmailed into recusing himself.  Why think that?"

You replied by quoting the "Why think that?" part and saying "Because it makes sense?"

This does imply that you accept Mark's description of what you said.

Ellen

Ellen,

I didn't even think when I snapped back with that. As a rule, I get irritated with peer pressure and asking someone, "Why even think that?" is a classic form of it.

Also, I was irritated with the word "blackmail" because it was such a distortion. So I shot out a smartass answer.

If this discussion had been just between him and me, and he said what you just said, I wouldn't even bother correcting him. I would consider it a meaningless gotcha from someone who's not interested in what one means. He knew what he was doing when he distorted my words. When discussions get to the point of mischaracterizing what others say to their face, correcting ever little piece of crap is tedious.

But I forgot there were readers out there.

Uh oh...

 

So thanks for being a voice of awareness of the audience. A good writer should never forget the observer where meaning is concerned.

Michael