If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[Ksyrup]

Hey look at that, the GOP won its first vote!

[GrantDawg]

Breaking in @PunchbowlNews PM: The Club for Growth and the Congressional Leadership Fund have cut a major agreement that paves the way for the Club to drop its opposition to Kevin McCarthy’s speaker bid

CLF has agreed to not spend money in open primaries in safe GOP districts.

— Punchbowl News (@PunchbowlNews) January 5, 2023

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If McCarthy deals with Dems and Biden then he gets removed as speaker by his own party. Look at what Boehner went through.

Agree. That's why I said

Can't be a public deal. McCarthy won't survive that. Needs to be a Biden, Klain, Jeffries backroom dealing.

Until the majority of the GOP are interested in making deals and legislating there's no reason for dems to give them rope for anything more than to hang themselves. There's no reason to help them put their big boy pants on so they can look more adult.

My main premise is McCarthy is the best of the bad. If it turns out it's speaker McCarthy but beholden to Gaetz & crew, that would be much worse than just dealing with McCarthy without Gaetz & crew.

As for Hunter Biden, if he committed crimes then put him in jail. There's no reason for the House to be interested in him though. If they feel the need to investigate because he's the son of the President and made foreign deals then they can investigate Ivanka and her China deals.

I actually agree the House should not be involved.

Hunter has been investigated for tax evasion, something was submitted back in Oct 22, but DOJ has not made a decision to charge Hunter yet.

I do want an investigation on the other stuff too. If not the House, then I'm good with a special counsel being appointed. But that probably won't happen and hence, the GOP doing the investigation

Comer said Republicans on the committee have uncovered evidence of federal crimes by the Biden family or benefiting them, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Act, tax evasion, and money laundering.

Sure, the Dems could have investigated Ivanka. I'd be okay with that. They decided to spend their time on other things.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Hey look at that, the GOP won its first vote!

Just barely.

I think it's obvious they paid off the clerk to close the vote too early.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

McCarthy has had since November to get these ducks in a row. And this wasn't a surprise.

How the heck did he let this happen. If you don't have the votes, then drop out of the race.

What race?

I think if there had actually been someone running against him, there might have already been a Speaker selected. At the very least, we all would have had a better idea of where everyone stood. Since November, there is one option. McCarthy. McCarthy is desperate for the job. Unless someone else really does step up to take the job, McCarthy is going to continue to offer himself up as a plaything until they pick him.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Breaking in @PunchbowlNews PM: The Club for Growth and the Congressional Leadership Fund have cut a major agreement that paves the way for the Club to drop its opposition to Kevin McCarthy’s speaker bid

CLF has agreed to not spend money in open primaries in safe GOP districts.

— Punchbowl News (@PunchbowlNews) January 5, 2023

So they'll run even more wackos that lose winnable general elections.

[Thomkal]

Adam Kinzinger has joined CNN as a Senior Political Commentator.

[GrantDawg]

Not only that, it sounds like McCarthy has caved on everything. He is willing to give these guys whatever they ask at this point.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[bronconick]

One of the demands was "Any one member can eject the Speaker and start a new election." He's not going to outlast the lettuce from Liz Truss.

[JPhillips]

I wish I could sell this guy a car. I'd make a fortune.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I actually want Hunter Biden to be investigated. I don't think Joe did anything seriously wrong (e.g. nothing a father wouldn't have done). But yeah, I do want to know if there were any unethical deals (probably) and any illegal stuff (questionable). If that's what some GOP want to spin their wheels & focus on, go ahead, there are worse things they could spend their time on.

Serious question: to what end? If it wasn't obvious before, I think the Jan 6th investigations demonstrated conclusively that congressional investigations no longer serve a purpose. It didn't move public opinion at all. What good does it do to spend money investigating something when nothing will be done about it? Let the agencies that have the power to prosecute do the investigating. Unless it's a prelude to a possible impeachment of a public official, Congress is just spinning it's wheels.

There was a time when it was useful of course, but I think it's clear that time has long since passed.

[RainMaker]

I feel like if there was something he did bad, it would have come out when Trump was in the White House. He had the full DOJ at his back. I mean the guy spent the last couple years trying to dig up dirt to the point he tried to extort a foreign ally.

It does sort of seem like they really want us all to see his cock for some reason though.

[albionmoonlight]

PredictIt has McCarthy back up over .50

I'm not sure if I missed some news.

[Lathum]

Hunter Biden is a private citizen who likely made money trading off his family name.

Please tell me where the crime is and why it rises to the level of a congressional investigation?

Anyone who can't see all that would be is red meat for the base is naïve as hell.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Serious question: to what end? If it wasn't obvious before, I think the Jan 6th investigations demonstrated conclusively that congressional investigations no longer serve a purpose. It didn't move public opinion at all.

I don't think its conclusive at all. I didn't find any post-election polls that said that Jan 6th investigations did or did not influence mid-terms. If you have a source, I would be interesting in reading about it.

538 did have a poll that said below. Lending credence that the long running Jan 6th investigations kept (or help keep) "polarization or extremism" pretty much top of mind.

Also, what's left as TBD is how this will or not impact Trump's 2024. And, of course, it's reassuring that we have all these documentation, eye witnesses etc. that recorded what happened for the history books and future generations.

So were the Jan 6 investigations worth it? Absolutely

Inflation or increasing costs (29 percent) and political polarization or extremism (19 percent) were top of mind again, while abortion ranked third (12 percent).

What good does it do to spend money investigating something when nothing will be done about it? Let the agencies that have the power to prosecute do the investigating. Unless it's a prelude to a possible impeachment of a public official, Congress is just spinning it's wheels.

If Joe/AG would direct the DOJ (or special counsel) to investigate Hunter beyond tax evasion & gun purchase, I'm all for it. Has it happened? Nope. Will it happen? I doubt it.

Arguably, Hunter's emails are just as real as contents in the Steele dossier. So if there was a Dem congressional investigation based on it (or significant parts of it), why not Hunter's emails. No doubt elements of GOP political theatre, definitely elements of political payback etc.

The criteria of "possible impeachment" may be the result of the investigation. Won't know unless its conducted.

*****

Let me summarize my understanding of the situation (feel free to correct).

1) There is no doubt it was Hunter's laptop. There is doubt on chain of custody and if things were inserted/changed but many emails have been verified
2) There is little doubt there were some emails re: influence peddling/dealings with China and Burisma. There were already reports of this before Hunter's laptop fiasco, the laptop just provided more evidence
3) There were other stuff that showed Hunter was a POS at that time. But not relevant

The question is whether Joe was aware of them (maybe) and, more importantly, if he profited somehow from those dealings (unlikely)

[Flasch186]

@lathum

But they’re saying it’s simply normal congressional oversight

You have to go by what they’re saying about it and you cannot draw conclusions from any other things said or done in the past. No assumptions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

PredictIt has McCarthy back up over .50

I'm not sure if I missed some news.

McCarthy gave up more concessions to the holdouts last night.

Apparently hostage taking works when the hostage is the negotiator himself and he's a spineless buffoon.

I've been wrong on pretty much every prediction I've had about the GOP and its voters since 2016, so I have no idea which way this is going to go. But it seems like what happened is the radicals won/will win.

[Ksyrup]

I hope he starts losing some moderates. All he's done is assure this will continue to be chaos when 1 member can take him down at any time, and then we're right back here. It's stupid.

[Swaggs]

I don't see it. I think they may peel back 10 or so with promises, but I think there are a core of at least 4 (Gaetz, Biggs, Good, and Rosendale) and probably more that aren't going to ever vote for him. I've said it before, but it doesn't bother a lot of these guys if we don't have a functioning government - they like being able to point out how the federal government doesn't work and they are in position to make it not work right now and they personally don't like/respect McCarthy.

[albionmoonlight]

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I feel like if there was something he did bad, it would have come out when Trump was in the White House. He had the full DOJ at his back. I mean the guy spent the last couple years trying to dig up dirt to the point he tried to extort a foreign ally.

It does sort of seem like they really want us all to see his cock for some reason though.

Pretty much

They had possession of the laptop prior to the election. Trump had a lackey as head of the DOJ. Trump was desperately trying to eliminate Biden as a candidate. No charges came from the laptop. But a congressional investigation is going to turn up something new?

I'll add that Barr could have chosen a special council on his way out if he felt there was something there that would be squashed by the incoming administration and he chose not too. Additionally, in interviews since he's alluded to the fact that it was all just to damage Biden's election chances and he was frustrated that the media didn't cover the story enough.

[Lathum]

0-7

[bronconick]

Will McCarthy tie the Lions/Browns 0-16 season?

[GrantDawg]

Gaetz with the first Trump vote.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

How can Trump be pissed at Gaetz now? Ha!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Gaetz with the first Trump vote.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

We all should've known this is where this fight was headed.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think its conclusive at all. I didn't find any post-election polls that said that Jan 6th investigations did or did not influence mid-terms. If you have a source, I would be interesting in reading about it.

538 did have a poll that said below. Lending credence that the long running Jan 6th investigations kept (or help keep) "polarization or extremism" pretty much top of mind.

Also, what's left as TBD is how this will or not impact Trump's 2024. And, of course, it's reassuring that we have all these documentation, eye witnesses etc. that recorded what happened for the history books and future generations.

So were the Jan 6 investigations worth it? Absolutely

If keeping polarization or extremism at the top of people's minds reminded people to go out and ensure that those responsible for the polarization and extremism are returned to Congress, then no they were not worth it. Given the attacks on what is and is not written in history books and how it will the self esteem of certain grouos, I can almost guarantee my grandkids will not learn about the Jan 6th investigations in school.

If Joe/AG would direct the DOJ (or special counsel) to investigate Hunter beyond tax evasion & gun purchase, I'm all for it. Has it happened? Nope. Will it happen? I doubt it.

Arguably, Hunter's emails are just as real as contents in the Steele dossier. So if there was a Dem congressional investigation based on it (or significant parts of it), why not Hunter's emails. No doubt elements of GOP political theatre, definitely elements of political payback etc.

The criteria of "possible impeachment" may be the result of the investigation. Won't know unless its conducted.

*****

Let me summarize my understanding of the situation (feel free to correct).

1) There is no doubt it was Hunter's laptop. There is doubt on chain of custody and if things were inserted/changed but many emails have been verified
2) There is little doubt there were some emails re: influence peddling/dealings with China and Burisma. There were already reports of this before Hunter's laptop fiasco, the laptop just provided more evidence
3) There were other stuff that showed Hunter was a POS at that time. But not relevant

The question is whether Joe was aware of them (maybe) and, more importantly, if he profited somehow from those dealings (unlikely)

Once we have reached a place where an argument for a congressional investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop is that the other party did an investigation into the Steele dossier, congressional investigations no longer a benefit to the general public. It is only useful for the sake of campaign ads during the next election cycle.

[Edward64]

FWIW, the timeline for Hunter's laptop per below article. The article does report Isaacs as a conspiracist and Trump supporter. But I don't think he is lying about the sequence of events and reporting exchanges as he remembers them.

The Sordid Saga of Hunter Biden’s Laptop

1. April 2019 - Hunter drops of latop to Isaacs for repair
2. April + approx 90 days - Hunter has not returned or paid for repairs so the laptop becomes Isaac's property. He looks at the contents
3. Oct 2019 - Isaac's father Colonel Mac goes to FBI branch
4. Oct + few weeks later - FBI visits Isaac
5. Dec 2019 - FBI visits Isaac again and takes laptop (Isaacs has made backup copy)
6. Dec + few days later - Isaacs reports below quote. Take it FWIW
7. Dec + sometime later - Isaacs reaches out to Jim Jordan & Lindsey Graham but does not hear anything back
8. Aug 2020 - 9 months after FBI visit, Isaacs reached out to Guiliani & attorney

Within a few days, he started to feel uneasy about the FBI. The agents called him up asking for assistance in getting access to the drive. Didn’t the FBI have its own tech support? He thought back to his conversation with the agents, especially a comment he recalled their making about his safety concerns, something to the effect of “Nothing happens to people who don’t talk about these things.” Was that a threat?

If this timeline and Isaacs recollection is true, the unanswered question is what did the FBI do with the laptop & contents during the period of Dec 2019 to Aug 2020. If the FBI was conducting investigations on the laptop before Guiliani got his hands on it, I've not found it reported (let me know if you find a link). Conspiracists will say FBI sympathizers suppressed the laptop but it could just as easily be FBI incompetence/inefficiencies during Covid.

Bottom-line. Although the laptop was with the FBI for about a 10 months, it is not clear if the FBI had let higher ups know and/or if the contents were being investigated.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Hunter Biden is a private citizen who likely made money trading off his family name.

Please tell me where the crime is and why it rises to the level of a congressional investigation?

Anyone who can't see all that would be is red meat for the base is naïve as hell.

Not congressional investigation worthy but here are some potential crimes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166809

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

If keeping polarization or extremism at the top of people's minds reminded people to go out and ensure that those responsible for the polarization and extremism are returned to Congress, then no they were not worth it. Given the attacks on what is and is not written in history books and how it will the self esteem of certain grouos, I can almost guarantee my grandkids will not learn about the Jan 6th investigations in school.

I'm willing to bet that my grandkids will learn about Jan 6th. It'll be in all the US history books.

Once we have reached a place where an argument for a congressional investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop is that the other party did an investigation into the Steele dossier, congressional investigations no longer a benefit to the general public. It is only useful for the sake of campaign ads during the next election cycle.

I used Steele as an example of congressional investigations (just like the Hunter laptop). My rationale for supporting a Hunter investigation is under "Let me summarize"

(and also the timeline of events post just posted)

[Flasch186]

Deleted

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Once we have reached a place where an argument for a congressional investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop is that the other party did an investigation into the Steele dossier, congressional investigations no longer a benefit to the general public. It is only useful for the sake of campaign ads during the next election cycle.

Isn't that the point? It serves two purposes - gives official credence to allegations (supported or not) against the other party and allows GOP to "both sides" the Trump and J6 impeachments/investigations. Trump and "insurrectionists" did nothing wrong, it was as much political as we're being now.

It minimizes all the actual crimes committed by muddying the water as a political/revenge thing as opposed to warranted investigation.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Not congressional investigation worthy but here are some potential crimes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166809

and if he committed crimes he should be treated like any other private citizen.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think its conclusive at all. I didn't find any post-election polls that said that Jan 6th investigations did or did not influence mid-terms. If you have a source, I would be interesting in reading about it.

538 did have a poll that said below. Lending credence that the long running Jan 6th investigations kept (or help keep) "polarization or extremism" pretty much top of mind.

Polls such as this Monmouth one, which did before-and-after reactions. It's inconceivable that the hearings had more of an effect on the elections months later than they did in the immediate aftermath, as such things fade from the public mind rather than intensifying. The general 'I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts' approach is very much on point here.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute | Monmouth University

On the 'polarization' bit, that is not necessarily connected to the hearings at all. I understand the line you are drawing between the two, I just think it is very speculative and far more likely that other items in the general news cycle, statements by candidates and coverage of them, interactions with other citizens drove that.

[bronconick]

I never knew CSPAN got the broadcast rights to "Kevin Can F--- Himself".

[Atocep]

If you believe there should be a congressional investigation into Hunter Biden then you're saying the most partisan attorney General in recent memory obstructed or buried the investigation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Polls such as this Monmouth one, which did before-and-after reactions. It's inconceivable that the hearings had more of an effect on the elections months later than they did in the immediate aftermath, as such things fade from the public mind rather than intensifying. The general 'I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts' approach is very much on point here.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute | Monmouth University

On the 'polarization' bit, that is not necessarily connected to the hearings at all. I understand the line you are drawing between the two, I just think it is very speculative and far more likely that other items in the general news cycle, statements by candidates and coverage of them, interactions with other citizens drove that.

FWIW, I find it hard to believe that Jan 6 did not change people's minds.

Couple notes:

1) The Monmouth poll methodology section said self-reported demographics below. I don't know the question/phrasing they used, but 45% Independent automatically brings questions of its validity.

26% Republican
45% Independent
29% Democrat

2) In this poll The Jan. 6 Hearings Hurt Trump With Independents. Will It Cost the GOP in November? - Morning Consult

Maybe our difference of opinion is I'm thinking more about the independents vs the entrenched Dems/Reps?

Democrats’ Generic Ballot Lead Among Independents Swells to New High as Trump’s Image Worsens

Graphic was too big, look in article and you'll see the graphic of how independents leaned towards Dems.

[Ksyrup]

"Hey, this is going to be funny! Kevin Hern is a Kevin so I'm going to vote for him to own the ... RINOs!"

[Ksyrup]

Maybe the Speakership should just be bullpen by committee. We're up to 4 GOP nominees now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If you believe there should be a congressional investigation into Hunter Biden then you're saying the most partisan attorney General in recent memory obstructed or buried the investigation.

re: Barr being the most partisan AG in recent memory, see below link & quote.

Bill Barr claims he erupted at Trump when ex-president called him about Hunter Biden, new book says | Daily Mail Online

Bill Barr claimed to have yelled at former President Donald Trump after he asked the attorney general about Hunter Biden's laptop, a new excerpt from Barr's explosive forthcoming memoir revealed on Wednesday.

The ex-attorney general and his boss did not speak until weeks past the election afterwards, Barr wrote in his personal account of the Trump White House titled One Damn Thing After Another.

In the latest segment obtained by Fox, Barr described an October 2020 phone call from Trump. It was allegedly soon after the former president watched a Newsmax clip about the laptop, which threatened to have explosive information on then-candidate Biden and his recovering drug addict son.

Barr claimed Trump asked him: 'You know this stuff from Hunter Biden's laptop?'

'Mr. President, I can't talk about that, and I am not going to,' Barr said he 'sharply' replied.

The former Cabinet official said Trump was displeased with his tone and asked him to consider whether it was one of his five children instead of Biden's son.

'You know, if that was one of my kids-- ' Trump began, according to the book.

Barr cut him off: 'Dammit, Mr. President, I am not going to talk to you about Hunter Biden. Period!'

Note above was in Oct 2020 when the laptop came out. In my timeline recap above, the laptop was in FBI hands from Dec 2019 but the story broke only after Isaacs (who had given the laptop to FBI in 2019) reached out to Guiliani in Aug 2020.

My quote in my timeline post was:

If this timeline and Isaacs recollection is true, the unanswered question is what did the FBI do with the laptop & contents during the period of Dec 2019 to Aug 2020. If the FBI was conducting investigations on the laptop before Guiliani got his hands on it, I've not found it reported (let me know if you find a link). Conspiracists will say FBI sympathizers suppressed the laptop but it could just as easily be FBI incompetence/inefficiencies during Covid.

Bottom-line. Although the laptop was with the FBI for about a 10 months, it is not clear if the FBI had let higher ups know and/or if the contents were being investigated.

[JPhillips]

Just read a really terrifying theory. If the GOP holds the House and a Dem wins the WH in 2024 they could pull this trick to refuse to certify the winner of the election.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just read a really terrifying theory. If the GOP holds the House and a Dem wins the WH in 2024 they could pull this trick to refuse to certify the winner of the election.

I think that makes Kamala the president?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

re: Barr being the most partisan AG in recent memory, see below link & quote.

Bill Barr claims he erupted at Trump when ex-president called him about Hunter Biden, new book says | Daily Mail Online


Note above was in Oct 2020 when the laptop came out. In my timeline recap above, the laptop was in FBI hands from Dec 2019 but the story broke only after Isaacs (who had given the laptop to FBI in 2019) reached out to Guiliani in Aug 2020.

My quote in my timeline post was:

I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. Are you saying Barr wasn't partisan? That they hadn't looked i to rhe laptop?

Again, Barr could have assigned a special council on his way out and chose not too. He's spoken about the laptop in interviews and at no point has he suggested there was really anything to it. He has expressed frustration that the media didn't use the story to do more damage to Biden prior to the election.

If you look at the info we have you could easily come to the conclusion that the FBI sat on it until election time to maximize damage to Joe.

If there was anything to it Rudy could have taken it to all of the major newspapers or media companies. He specifically chose the NYP because he said he knew they wouldn't verify anything before they ran with the story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think that makes Kamala the president?

Nope,at least not according to previous analysis of the situation I've seen.

The existing terms end, both offices are vacant ... and if you haven't certified the new President then you also haven't certified the new VP.

If that vacancy persists past the dropdead date then it goes to line of succession, which begins at Speaker of the House ... with the tricky caveat that, if they assume the presidency, then they must resign their House seat (which is why no one believed Pelosi would accept the President seat on a temporary basis)

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just read a really terrifying theory. If the GOP holds the House and a Dem wins the WH in 2024 they could pull this trick to refuse to certify the winner of the election.

Thought they took a chunk out of that last week with the Electoral Count Reform Act. VP is ceremonial now and they need 20% of both chambers to object. They might get 45% from the House but only got 6 Senators in 2020.

[JPhillips]

This wouldn't ever get to a certification. The House wouldn't have a Speaker and so couldn't be in session. I'd expect enough people would form a coalition to get around this and elect a Speaker, but given the way the GOP works, who knows?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. Are you saying Barr wasn't partisan?

Barr is obviously partisan. Specific to the Hunter laptop, he is not near as partisan as you think he is (if you can believe his quote).

That they hadn't looked i to rhe laptop?

There is a gap between Dec 2019 and Aug 2020. The FBI had it during this time.

I do not know what the FBI was doing with it during this time period. The story broke in spite of the FBI. Guiliani broke the story in Oct 2020.

What I want to know or my points

(1) is the FBI actively investigating Hunter re: laptop and when did it start (2) when did Barr know about the laptop and contents (3) if Barr did not know about the laptop until Oct 2020, why?

I freely admit I do not know the answers to the 3 questions above. My cynical self would answer FBI did not start investigating until Oct 2020. Probably sat on the laptop since Dec 2019. May be because of some FBI anti-Trump sympathizers. Barr did not know until Oct 2020. If this true, then I want to know why.

Again, Barr could have assigned a special council on his way out and chose not too. He's spoken about the laptop in interviews and at no point has he suggested there was really anything to it.

The articles I found Barr talking about the laptop was after the story broke in Oct 2020. If this is wrong, please share the links. I do want to know when Barr knew about the laptop & contents.

He has expressed frustration that the media didn't use the story to do more damage to Biden prior to the election.

I actually did not read this. I did read that he thought Biden lied during one of the debates and he was frustrated with that.

If you look at the info we have you could easily come to the conclusion that the FBI sat on it until election time to maximize damage to Joe.

It's pretty clear that it was Isaac (the repair guy who owned the laptop after 90 days) reaching out to Guiliani that broke the story to the public. The FBI may have sat on the story, but they did not break the story to the public.

If there was anything to it Rudy could have taken it to all of the major newspapers or media companies. He specifically chose the NYP because he said he knew they wouldn't verify anything before they ran with the story.

Can you provide the link where Guiliani said "wouldn't verify anything before they ran the story".

Regardless, the laptop is real. There is no real debate that some emails have been validated as true. There are some valid questions on chain of custody and emails/docs that have not yet been validated.

[Edward64]

Here we go again. Fun

At least some votes are changing to different people

[GrantDawg]

I'm still waiting for the New York Times headline: "Republicans fail to elect Speaker on 9th vote. Democrats in disarray.."

[Flasch186]

SMH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk