Tyb
Donald J. Trump/ @realDonaldTrump
07/01/2022 14:41:43
Truth Social: 108573550409030035
https://qagg.news/?read=TT592
The J6 Show Trial Is Lying About Election ‘Fraud’
The January 6 show trial is partly about persecuting political opponents. But it’s also about covering up the truth of the 2020 election.
The purpose of the January 6 committee is to further the lie that there was nothing seriously wrong with the 2020 election and to criminalize any questioning of the election. The January 6 riot gives the committee a nice hook, but that’s not what they really care about.
They want to prevent you from admitting the election was irregular, faulty, or anything less than the most perfect election in the history of mankind, and from supporting people who fought against those irregularities. In service of this goal, the January 6 committee repeatedly lied about the actual claims Donald Trump supporters have made about the flaws in the election.
The January 6 Committee is conducting a show trial, not a criminal one. Show trials, common in authoritarian regimes, are held for propaganda purposes, to punish political opponents, and to cover up the truth of what the regime has done.
Democrats’ show trial is completely one-sided. The members on the committee were appointed exclusively by Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. There are zero Republican-appointed members. In fact, Pelosi refused to allow the top Republicans Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy picked for the committee — an unprecedented violation of House rules and norms.
No one represents the accused or advocates for their rights. No cross-examination or presentation of a defense has been allowed from the targets of the trial. The committee does not follow House rules on evidence or witness depositions. The so-called investigation has declared off-limits any good-faith inquiry into issues that contradict their persecution, whether a look at what led to the lack of security by Capitol police forces or a look at the legitimate concerns about the unique and novel way the 2020 election was conducted.
The show trial is deeply and profoundly un-American. This week’s “surprise” hearing has already imploded under the weight of the inaccurate testimony given by young staff assistant Cassandra Hutchinson. But last Thursday’s episode also deserves scrutiny for the lies it contained.
That hearing was focused on Jeffrey Clark, a Department of Justice (DOJ) official during the Trump administration who had proposed more aggressive investigative and legal efforts in the controversial aftermath of the 2020 election than many of his peers. Incidentally, among the growing concerns about a ream of false statements given is a report that Hutchinson also lied about Clark.
The Misdirection On ‘Fraud’
The “storyline” for the committee’s June 23 televised spectacle revolved around a letter that Clark drafted and wanted other DOJ officials to sign and send to the leadership of the Georgia state legislature. Here’s a portion of Rep. Liz Cheney’s loaded remarks about this. Before reading them, it should be noted that it has already been shown that Cheney repeatedly lied about DOJ lawyer Ken Klukowski throughout the hearing:
Neither Mr. Clark nor Mr. Klukowski had any evidence of widespread election fraud, but they were quite aware of what Mr. Trump wanted the department to do. Jeff Clark met privately with President Trump and others in the White House and agreed to assist the president without telling the senior leadership of the department who oversaw him.
As you will see, this letter claims that the US Department of Justice’s investigations have ‘Identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia.’ In fact, Donald Trump knew this was a lie. The Department of Justice had already informed the president of the United States repeatedly that its investigations had found no fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The words fraud or fraudulent were used some 50 times in Thursday’s hearing, typically in the way they’re used in the excerpt above. The Democrat-appointed members would claim that Clark was alleging election fraud and, further, that everything about the election had been fully investigated and there was no evidence of problems with the election.
There are two major problems with Cheney’s argument. First, if she had read Clark’s letter, she would have noticed that while it did discuss major identified problems with the election potentially affecting the outcome, it never once alleged fraud. Second, it is highly debatable that the problems with the election were ever competently investigated or even understood.
If you look at the actual letter Clark drafted for discussion, he referenced “various irregularities,” “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election,” and “irregularities, sworn to by a variety of witnesses.” He referenced a report arising from Georgia Senate hearings that had taken sworn testimony and affidavits from many people about the chaotic and troubling administration of the Georgia election.
The complaints included problems with ballot custody, inability to monitor vote tabulation, inadequately maintained voter lists, and the counting of ballots from ineligible voters. The testimony even included something that would become a massive concern of election integrity advocates — the private takeover of government election offices by Mark Zuckerberg-funded groups.
And Georgia really was a mess, Fulton County in particular. None of Fulton County’s respected Republican election commissioners voted to certify the election. They had numerous problems, including that the first certification vote was taken just hours after Fulton County was still finding, processing, and tabulating ballots.
During the run-off, thumb drives were accidentally left in voting machines, exacerbating their previous concerns about ballot custody and chain of command issues. The commissioners also were concerned that no chain of custody information had been provided to them, even after they asked, for the 38 drop boxes spread throughout the country. The commissioners were concerned that no meaningful efforts had taken place to verify signatures on mail-in ballots.
It is false to claim that these things were properly investigated or that, if they were, there was no evidence to support them. Many independent analysts have determined that the Zuckerberg-funded takeover of government election offices significantly affected the outcome of the election.
That was where nearly $450 million was given — with a focus on the Democrat areas of swing states — to help run Get Out The Vote efforts. In an election that came down to 43,000 votes across three states, it is not difficult to make an overwhelming case that the Zuckerberg funding alone was outcome determinative.
It would have been difficult to properly investigate that in the short time period after the election, but it’s absolutely false to say it was investigated, much less thoroughly.
More Than 12,000 Illegal Votes In Georgia
Clark also expressed in his draft letter a “troubling” concern over a lawsuit that was being slow-tracked by a Georgia judge. He urged action because, “Despite the action having been filed on December 4, 2020, the trial court there has not even scheduled a hearing on matter, making it difficult for the judicial process to consider this evidence and resolve these matters on appeal prior to January 6.”
His concern was extremely well-founded. That lawsuit, widely regarded at the time as being strong and based on legitimate election problems, ended up being vindicated. In their lawsuit, the Trump campaign claimed that tens of thousands of voters had moved without registering to vote in their new residence. To get the figures about changes of address, the campaign looked at the National Change of Address data set, a secure data set of information on people who have filed a change of address with the United States Postal Service.
Filing a change-of-address form with the post office doesn’t conclusively mean the person is no longer eligible to vote at his or her former address. Some of those address changes could be college students or military members serving elsewhere. They would still be eligible to vote at the address they changed their mail from being delivered to.
But many of them reflected permanent moves to new cities and states. In fact, with around 10 percent of the population moving each year, and inadequate maintenance of voter rolls, experts say there are literally millions of bogus registrations on voter rolls all over the country. Such a situation doesn’t necessitate fraud, but it does make the situation ripe for fraud or the illegal casting of votes.
There were around 122,000 Georgia voters in 2020 who told the Postal Service they were moving to a new county in Georgia with a “move effective date” of more than 30 days before the election and who failed to re-register in their new county in time to be eligible to vote in the general election.
The secretary of state specifically instructs, citing Georgia law, that doing this means “you have lost your eligibility to vote in the county of your old residence.” Voters are required to register in the new county. “Remember, if you don’t register to vote by the deadline, you cannot vote in that particular election,” the secretary of state instructed.
The vast majority of the 122,000 voters who moved obeyed the law and did not try to vote in their old county. But thousands of voters appeared to break the law by casting a vote in a county in which they didn’t live. Most did so by voting absentee ballot, albeit many by early in-person absentee voting rather than mail-in voting.
Nearly all of these voters appeared to have voted in the wrong state house district, and more than 85 percent appeared to have voted in the wrong state senate district. Nearly two-thirds appeared to have voted in the wrong congressional district. And all of them appeared to be illegal votes in all races, since they would be ineligible to vote by law. Those who made similar moves but did not register to vote at their new address, and therefore didn’t vote, had obeyed the law.
The issue is important because it shows “the folks who obeyed the law didn’t get to vote, and the folks who broke it did get to vote,” Mark Davis, a Republican data expert in Georgia who raised alarms about the problem, said last year. Davis was a fighter for election integrity in a state that could be lax about enforcing its basic laws. He drew attention to several problems, including vulnerabilities enabling double voting.
“For years and years and years, I’ve kind of been that nerd over there that will bore you to tears talking about election integrity,” he jokes. He’s been an expert witness in five different election cases, usually dealing with problems caused by failure to place voters in their proper municipal district or related to change-of-address issues.
Davis shared the information with the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, which has admitted the problem, although it made excuses for the admittedly illegal votes.
Incidentally, it was this lawsuit that was being discussed when President Trump told the secretary of state to “find” votes. That was wrongly characterized as the president trying to pressure someone to invent a finding of problematic votes. Here’s why.
The latest update on these illegal votes is that evidence indicates more than 12,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — exceeding the 11,779 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The campaign knew that the problem of illegal voting may be more than the margin of victory that Biden, which would have meant that the state would grant relief.
But the campaign also knew their lawsuit was being slow-tracked and that it could take more than a year to get confirmation on the numbers without help from the secretary of state. They had also listed categories of other major problems potentially affecting the margin of victory.
They just needed the secretary of state’s office to care about enough of the illegal votes earlier. While at least this illegal voting portion of the campaign’s lawsuit was vindicated, it wasn’t vindicated in a timely enough fashion to matter.
Different Legal Strategies Are Not A Crime
The Soviet-style show trial has featured testimony from people in Trump’s administration who did not think it wise to keep challenging election results, particularly after the Electoral College had convened. I know and interviewed many of them for “Rigged,” my book on the 2020 election.
They found the post-election day legal efforts led by Trump to be poorly strategized and executed. I share details about some of those debacles in the book, particularly how Rudy Guiliani took a promising Pennsylvania case with superstar attorneys — about disparate treatment of voters — into a case about fraud, thereby ruining it. That decision also led judges in other states to get nervous and impatient about other cases.
It also increased anxiety among establishment attorneys who had previously been part of the legal effort. Many of these attorneys were also having their lives and reputations threatened by NeverTrump groups, who were posting personal information and sending mobs to harass them.
Trump administration officials had major concerns — prior to the election — about the lack of election integrity provided by the rush to widespread mail-in voting. For example, former Attorney General Bill Barr said in September 2020 that expansive mail-in voting was “playing with fire.”
But these officials also believed it wasn’t really the job of the Justice Department to pursue investigations about the issue. They were willing to look into various claims that were swirling about, but considered it to be more of a local or regional crime issue that could rise to the level of DOJ interest, rather than something that should be driven from the headquarters down.
The January 6 show trial has tried to suggest that problems with the 2020 election were thoroughly investigated. Evidence for the claim is lacking. Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bill McSwain has publicly said he was told by Barr to stand down from investigating, a claim Barr publicly denies. McSwain wrote Trump was “right to be upset about the way the Democrats ran the 2020 election in Pennsylvania — it was a partisan disgrace.”
He added, in a letter to Trump that was later publicized, “On Election Day and afterwards, our Office received various allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities. As part of my responsibilities as U.S. Attorney, I wanted to be transparent with the public and, of course, investigate fully any allegations. Attorney General Barr, however, instructed me not to make any public statements or put out any press releases regarding possible election irregularities. I was also given a directive to pass along serious allegations to the State Attorney General for investigation — the same State Attorney General who had already declared that you could not win. I disagreed with the decision, but those were my orders. As a Marine infantry officer, I was trained to follow the chain of command and to respect the orders of my superiors, even when I disagree with them.”
Again, Barr denies this accounting. And he’s publicly said he did try to run down various allegations of fraud that were being bandied about.
Clark’s superiors at the Department of Justice did not want him to pursue his aggressive efforts, but he was also discussing the topic with their superior, the president himself. He tried to pursue a more aggressive strategy than the one that many DOJ officials thought prudent.
Reasonable people can see both sides here. Prudence — particularly so late in the game — is a huge issue. More tenacious fighting for election integrity is also virtuous. Many leaders up to and including Trump himself should have done far more — far earlier — to fight Democrats’ coordinated and widespread attacks on the integrity of the country’s election system. Many Republican officials were sounding the alarm in the months prior, but more should have been done to effectively fight before the election, including a legal strategy to fight the chaos, confusion, and corruption that was almost certainly going to occur.
But differing legal strategies are not crimes, no matter how much Pelosi and Cheney and their media bootlickers would like them to be. It is reasonable to oppose Clark’s strategy, but the letter causing so much dispute was not about fraud. It was about the many other problems affecting the integrity of the election. It was also — and it says this clearly on every page — a draft product for discussion. The letter urged state legislatures to ensure the integrity of their state’s elections when there was cause for concern. The Constitution does give that responsibility to the states.
The January 6 show trial is partly about persecuting political opponents. But it’s also about covering up the truth of the 2020 election. Turning questions about the many problems with the 2020 election into a crime is the type of thing that is done in third-world countries. Persecuting people who talk about it or try to do something about it is what you expect in corrupt authoritarian regimes. It is horrific to see it happening here.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/01/the-j6-show-trial-is-lying-about-election-fraud/
>>16576562, >>16576563, >>16576565, >>16576568, >>1657656 Donald J. Trump: The J6 Show Trial Is Lying About Election ‘Fraud’9
For the notables
>>16576562, >>16576563, >>16576565, >>16576568, >>16576569 >>16576572 Donald J. Trump: The J6 Show Trial Is Lying About Election ‘Fraud’9
Corrected, for the notables
You bake it, if you're so concerned.
What have you contributed to this bread?
Concern shillFILTERED
Donald J. Trump / @realDonaldTrump
07/01/2022 14:42:38
Truth Social: 108573554016306542
https://qagg.news/?read=TT593
Trump’s SCOTUS Keeps #Winning with EPA Decision
Thank you, Donald Trump, for “packing”—in your way, not the Democrats’ way—the Supreme Court with sensible people.
Finally, we’re beginning to take the years ago advice of Nat King Cole to “Straighten Up and Fly Right” (in more ways than one).
First came the long overdue overturning of Roe v. Wade, allowing the states and the people in them to make their own decisions about abortion (imagine that!).
Now, that great religion substitute, the sainted Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has been brought at least partially to heel by a 6–3 vote of the court.
And, mirabile dictu, Chief Justice John Roberts himself wrote (pdf) the wise decision (there’s a first), as quoted here at The Epoch Times:
“While ‘[c]apping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Roberts wrote, quoting a 1992 precedent, “it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d)” of the Clean Air Act.
“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
Of course. Just like Roe v. Wade, decisions of this nature in any sort of democratic government belong to the people—or as close as we can get to them, meaning legislatures—not to the judiciary or, least of all, unelected officials hidden (often for years) in some agency, beholden only to themselves and their patrons.
End of story. But let’s take this a bit further. Has there been anything in the last few decades more open to corruption and boondoggles than the self-righteous, virtue-signaling devotion to the “environment”?
Well, maybe now the vaccines are giving it a run for its money.
The irony is almost all of us love nature and seek to protect it, but the pompous tyrants who call themselves “environmentalists” act as if we don’t, condemning us any time we dissent in the slightest from their religion—this, even though we all know, or should, it’s what you do, not what you say that counts.
Speaking of which, the large Washington demonstrations by the supposedly ultra-right Tea Party Movement (2009) were reported to have been remarkably self-policed and devoid of garbage. Those of the left, like the pink-hatted (being discrete here) mass reaction to Trump’s 2016 election left the nation’s capital an unholy mess.
All through this time, Al Gore and quite a number of others have made massive fortunes through scams like carbon credits while, we all also know at this point, flying about in private jets to the most expensive redoubts on the planet to tell us all how to live.
John Kerry, America’s first “special envoy for climate,” who seems to spend more time in those private planes than most of us do in bed, has a personal carbon footprint the size of Brooklyn and is well known for docking his $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island to avoid a half million in taxes from his home state of Massachusetts.
I have a personal note of my own to add, having attended, for PJ Media, the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in the midst of the biggest blizzard I had ever encountered—and I went to college in New Hampshire.
I was sitting waiting for one of the panel discussions to begin when, to kill time, I casually addressed the man next to me, asking him where he was from.
“The Maldives,” he said. Amazing, I thought, because I had just read the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean were in danger of extinction, actually going completely under water, because of global warming.
So, trying to be polite, I commiserated with him about the peril to his homeland, but he just shrugged. “Is nothing,” he explained. “We put up sandbags against tide. We do every year. No problem.”
I looked at him non-plussed. “You came a long way. Why’re you here?”
He squinted at me, as if he thought I was either an idiot or I was kidding. “For the money,” he said flatly.
Incidentally, I see once again that in November 2021, some 12 years after that conference, our friends at ABC are once more reporting “Facing dire sea level rise threat, Maldives turns to climate change solutions to survive.”
What do the French say? The more things change, the more they remain the same?
Good thing Trump came along and “packed” the court, no?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trumps-scotus-keeps-winning-with-epa-decision_4569993.html
Donald J. Trump/ @realDonaldTrump
07/01/2022 17:47:12
Truth Social: 108574279789879399
https://qagg.news/?read=TT595
President Donald J. Trump:
“Hearing RINO Larry Hogan has tried to come to the rescue of his fellow “Never Trumper,” Kelly Schulz…The last thing Radical Left Democrats want is a real fighter in Maryland, or any other great state, and that’s Dan Cox all the way. Dan is the MAGA candidate who will save Maryland from the lunatics trying to destroy our borders, destroy our economy, destroy our energy, and destroy our schools. Primary day is July 19th vote for @realdancox, and his fantastic running mate, @gordana Schifanelli, who both have my Complete and Total Endorsement. They will never let you down!”
Donald J. Trump/ @realDonaldTrump
07/01/2022 17:47:36
Truth Social: 108574281363187518
https://qagg.news/?read=TT596
ICYMI: New National Emerson Poll
Donald J. Trump / @realDonaldTrump
07/01/2022 14:43:26
Truth Social: 108573557170732899
https://qagg.news/?read=TT594
Greg Gutfeld: Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony has been ruined and so has the January 6 Committee
Greg Gutfeld called on viewers to vote in the November midterms
So did you hear the latest news? Yep, Charles Payne accepted my friend request.
But also, according to NPR, the January 6 hearings are now extending into July. Yeah, I guess they're using the same calendar as two-weeks to flatten the curve. But thank God, because the stuff I've watched so far has been so riveting. To hell with that summer vacation to Key West. I know what I'm doing the first week or two of July. Yeah.
Apparently, they're going to pursue more witnesses and say they're going to get lots of new evidence. I guess they're not happy with the witnesses they originally cast in the —- show. What a disaster. Yeah. She made the Hindenburg look like a fender bender. She made Pompei look like Knott's Berry Farm. That's a weird comparison.
Cassidy Hutchinson, who was an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump, is sworn in to testify during a public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol. (REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein)
Apparently, they're going to subpoena Trump's White House counsel Pat Cipollone, I don't know, who already talked to these clowns. And what for? Well, obviously, to salvage the mess they made with their big star.
The good news, at least she didn't implicate two bodybuilding Nigerians. Seriously, haven't they been through enough? I just wish they'd move out of my apartment, they take the longest showers.
Apparently, the committee didn't bother to reach out to the Secret Service before it aired the crud about Trump lunging at security. So I guess they're doing that now, which means new witnesses become responsible for repairing other witnesses's hearsay. But maybe they'll find out that Trump didn't just lunge at the Secret Service, he did a double backflip off the trunk of the car and landed squarely in the lap of Abe Lincoln. Who knew Trump can drive an SUV from the backseat? You won't see that in a Bond movie.
Of course, the media will say, "come on, look, it's not a court of law." Which is true, but how's that helped you?
Hutchinson's testimony has now been ruined and by connection, so is the hearing. You'd think they'd be experts at framing Trump by now. They've had so much practice.
But damn, if I wanted to watch a show trial, I'd go to North Korea. At least none of the actors there are fat. It's not by choice, though. Yet it still goes on, and why? Because the incentives are in place.
First of all, you're paying for it. Like a night out with Kilmeade, you foot the bill.
BRIAN KILMEADE: That's not true. We go Dutch.
Yes, leave them out of this.
Two, the media wants it to go on forever because it feeds their bias, and it feels like they're reporting something when they're just Democrat stenographers. Here's one tweet from ABC's Jonathan Karl. It just says, "Thank you. Cassidy Hutchinson." That's a reporter. I guess he's referring to her testimony, but who knows? Maybe she shared her Netflix password with him, but that's the media. I'm just happy they left their pompoms at home.
Three, the Dems are in control, at least until November. This propaganda machine can go on till then, so don't be surprised if it does, because, like Joe on the steps of Air Force One, there's just no balance. Without legit pushback, you see, the Democrat politics is actually Stalinist politics, show me The Donald and I'll show you the crime.
So one wonders, what's really worse, that a rally got out of hand for one day, a rally in which people who never broke the law before broke the law, then got arrested and are serving time, which they should, because they broke the law or an open-ended one party media protected tribunal paid for by you to save their party's chances in November, while persecuting anyone they can in this unfettered witch hunt. Well, the answer is easier than me, after three daiquiris or two, eh one.
Meanwhile, our government ignores people illegally intimidating Supreme Court justices. How's that? So is this America where they offer unsubstantiated allegations that fall apart like a slow cooked pork shoulder, then use that to compel more testimony, testimony by reluctant participants, in front of grim partisan hacks?
We now see how duped everyone is to fall for the insurrection lie. It was all to create a spectacle to divert from their failures. So if you bought this B.S., you got Cheney'd, and you thought her dad only shot friends in the face. She contributed to a show trial that would make Joe McCarthy blush.
Did you see right after testifying, the star witness rushed to embrace Liz? What's that mean? Are they old friends? No, they're just part of the play. They're hugging like cast members of SNL when the show's over. How would Liz Cheney even know this low level executive branch employee? Unless, of course, they met at rehearsal.
So what's this mean for you? That you got to vote. The only way to stop this, is to vote every —- brained Democrat out of office. And then, and then let the real hearings begin. Because now we have the smoking gun, the laptop, the messages, the big man admitting he knew what his corrupt son was up to, roll the voicemail.
JOE BIDEN'S 2018 VOICEMAIL ON HUNTER'S CHINA DEAL: If you get a chance, give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you. I thought the article released online, it's going to be printed tomorow in the Times, was good. I think you're clear.
JOE BIDEN SKIT: "I think you're clear." Talk about real first person evidence of all sorts of multiple felonies, right on tape, which was buried by the press. Compare that to this show trial, full of mind reading and hearsay that's amplified by the press. It's crazy. I just hope there are more, there are more phone messages from Joe to Hunter.
JOE BIDEN SKIT: Hey, pal, it's dad again. I was just thinking, you know that, the voicemail I left you, the one about the, 'you're all clear.' You know to delete that, right? Okay, yeah, you're a smart kid. Alright, and just call me big guy from now on. Alright? No one's going to know what that means. Alright, love you, bye.
No wait, I think there's one more, right?
JOE BIDEN SKIT: Hey pal, its dad again? Hey look, I was just thinking. While we're deleting things… I was thinking maybe the 1,400 videos of you with the hookers and the cocaine? Yeah, I think you can get rid of those. I know it's, it's fun to look back, but I think it's time we give those the old 'scrubba dub.' Alright? Alright, love you.
The old 'scrubba dub.'
This is going to be great because these people should pay for wasting our time with these hearings while ignoring crime, inflation, border atrocities. It's our turn for justice, and I'm going to be here for it. Not because I'm a journalist, not because I'm a Republican, pretty sure I'm neither. It's because I'm an American, a pissed off one, too, and you should be as well.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/greg-gutfeld-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-ruined-january-6-committee
Liz Harrington / @realLizUSA
07/01/2022 18:10:57
Truth Social: 108574373137132049
Drunk on Power: Michigan Dem AG Threatens To Jail Opponent
https://qagg.news/?read=TO20342
Drunk on Power: Michigan Dem AG Threatens To Jail Opponent
After the Republican opponent ofMichigan attorney general Dana Nesselcriticized the Democrat for refusing to enforce the state's abortion ban, Nessel threatened to jail the candidate.
Jeff Timmer, a senior adviser for the Nessel campaign, tweeted on Wednesday that his boss's Republican challenger Matt DePerno has to "remain unindicted" to qualify for a debate. Timmer tweeted the threat just after DePerno criticized Nessel's refusal to enforce the state's 1931 abortion ban following the Supreme Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade.
"Consider this an official campaign response," Timmer tweeted. "I can commit that Dana will debate you. All you have to do is (1) become the official GOP nominee (2) remain unindicted and (3) allow Dana to Mirandize you at the beginning of the debate. Easy-peasy, right? Lemme know."
Matt,
Consider this an official campaign response. I can commit that Dana will debate you. All you have to do is (1) become the official GOP nominee (2) remain unindicted and (3) allow Dana to Mirandize you at the beginning of the debate. Easy-peasy, right?
Lemme know.
Jeff
— Jeff Timmer (@jefftimmer) June 29, 2022
Nessel, who is best known for her drunken exit on a wheelchair at a college football game, as well as her call for "drag queens for every school," has a history of threatening political opponents with jail time. As attorney general, she brought charges against former Republican Michigan governor Rick Snyder in relation to the Flint water crisis, but the state's Supreme Court dropped the charges. Emails obtained in a public information request also show Nessel attempted to have restaurant owner Marlena Hackney arrested before she appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss why she defied the state's pandemic lockdown order.
"Do we know her whereabouts?" Nessel wrote in an email. "We should just have her picked up before she goes on. This is outrageous."
Hackney was arrested seven days later.
DePerno rose to national fame after he challenged the 2020 election results in Michigan’s Antrim County. He is not under investigation but has faced criticism for withholding information about how he spends funds raised in support of an election audit.
DePerno said Nessel uses her power in office as a political weapon.
"It just shows she is getting more and more drunk on power and reckless with each passing day," DePerno told the Washington Free Beacon. "She has no shame in her actions and that is now very clear to the public."
Timmer reportedly joined Nessel’s campaign in October after years of experience working for the Michigan Republican Party. He is also a senior adviser to the Lincoln Project, whose cofounder John Weaver left the organization in disgrace amid accusations of sexual misconduct toward young men. The group reached a $375,000 legal settlement in February with an official who accused the super PAC of ignoring the misconduct allegations.
Gustavo Portela, the deputy chief of staff of the Michigan GOP, said Nessel should focus on actual crime, which has spiked under her rule.
"Dana Nessel is more consumed with jailing Michiganders who oppose her ideology than going after actual criminals making our streets and neighborhoods less safe," Portela told the Free Beacon. "It's no wonder crime has gone up under her watch. We're going to end her drunk-on-power tirades this fall when we defeat her in November."
Neither Nessel's campaign nor her office responded to requests for comment.
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/drunk-on-power-michigan-dem-ag-threatens-to-jail-opponent/
Donald J. Trump/ @realDonaldTrump
06/30/2022 12:36:49
Truth Social: 108567396952771187
Everyone must remember, this is all about massive Election Fraud which took place and which the Unselect Committee refuses to discuss. Likewise, they refuse to discuss the 10-20,000 soldiers that I offered 4 days earlier to secure the Capitol. Pelosi and the Mayor of DC, who are in charge of security, turned it down.
https://qagg.news/?read=TT584
President Donald J. Trump:
“Her whole story was made up, including the fact that I wanted guns to be standing all around me, during my speech. Who would want that?!”
https://qagg.news/?read=TO19690