Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Big Lie
In recent interviews, Liz Cheney has been calling President Trump’s insistence that the 2020 election was stolen “The Big Lie.” And over the weekend the mainstream media has been beside themselves over the forensic audit underway in Arizona. Today, President Trump decided to take those words and shove them back in the faces of spineless Republicans like her, Kevin McCarthy, and others by issuing the following statement:
Of course, Cheney doubled down on her assertions, and – much like every other Republican leader – has refused to actually debate the mountains of evidence most of us recognized immediately and have been daring others to examine ever since. One person who’s been front and center in all of this is Jenna Ellis, the president’s attorney who threw down a gauntlet of her own:
I love this, all of it. It reminds me that there are still a few people out there willing to have it out with the weak-kneed gatekeepers who care almost nothing about truth and even less about consequences. Will Cheney or any of the other media sycophants have the courage to debate any of our best and brightest on actual facts? Will conservative media outlets like Ricochet be willing to provide a forum?
This isn’t going away now, matter how much the hand-wringing NeverTrumpers want it to. I (and others like me) won’t sit quietly while these people desecrate our country and its laws. It’s beyond time to take a side on who is lying to whom. I stand with the president – not the usurper sitting in his chair, but the real one, who’s willing to call out a lie when he sees it, even if everyone else is afraid to.
Published in General
This isn’t true. Wisconsin, Trump won. I think a case in MI he won. I haven’t kept up with all the cases the media didn’t chase, but they were all still going through the court system even after SCOTUS shot down the suit brought by TEXAS, not Trump.
You aren’t getting your facts from reliable news sources. They lie and mislead and propagate Democrat propaganda. I highly encourage you to not take their word as gospel and to maintain skepticism of their narrative even if you choose not to look elsewhere for news information. Anyone who regurgitates their information uncritically is a useful idiot of the left. Your point of view is meaningless.
It’s not me who isn’t getting my facts from reliable sources. The arguments made by the Trump campaign or lawsuits on their behalf or in challenging elections laws, or however you want to characterise them, never reached the rhetoric of Ellis, Guiliani or Powell. Show me a Courtroom transcript where they claimed anything like that. They never did. Their challenges were always on technical aspects of law and they lost repeatedly. Often with Trump appointed judges.
You are right about the Texas case, that Scotus should have heard it as original jurisdiction. And they would have lost 9-0. That does not mean they should not have heard it, mind you. But the Court was never going to say that the interest of Texas were harmed by the actions of elections in other states. Have you any idea how insane that is? That’s essentially endorsing HR1, with the federal government in control of every state election.
If you want to argue these points, do. But don’t argue that I don’t have the facts. I’ve read many of the opinions of the Courts and it is laughable how little anything the Trump campaign said is reflected in their arguments before the Court. So maybe ask yourself why? Could it be they didn’t want to make those claims under oath? Or perhaps they don’t actually believe it and just propogate it to make Trump feel better about himself. Sidney Powell’s defense against the libels she committed is that no reasonable person would accept they were facts.
It’s hard to believe Biden attracted more voters than The One, Barack Hussein Obama . . .
Georgia admitted that 400,000 ballots didn’t have a chain of custody.
Why are there any ballots without a chain of custody?
He would not have lost except for Zuckerberg and probably the Democrat lawfare.
Does corporate media, democrats and the permanent bureaucracy pushing “Russian Collusion” count as “The Big Lie”?
How about corporate media and big tech squelching stories about Hunter Biden’s lap top count?
Pennsylvania and Georgia legislatures should have thrown out their elections because of the lack of controls. That is how the Constitution is written. Probably Michigan as well.
Georgia has admitted no such thing. That story was bunk from the get go.
So if I take your mental soundness test from above and look at question #3 and I’m left with the conclusion that half of the Democrats are mentally unsound.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/more-than-half-of-democrats-believed-bush-knew-035224
One anecdote. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stopped Zuckerberg and the Democrat law fair really well. He says that Georgia’s voting patterns normally match Texas. They didn’t last time because they didn’t do you that.
Georgia went for Clinton in 1992 and Texas went for Bush. Also they split in many other elections. In 68 it went for Wallace while Texas went Humphreys. The also split in 64, when Georgia was one of the few Goldwater holdouts but that can be explained by LBJ. In 2012 Georgia was a lot closer than Texas.
I may not have remembered that properly because it was strictly about stopping Zuckerberg and the law fair.
I got Dole wrong. Mea culpa. Changed my original. Sorry about that.
I think more accurately, he saying that the states different legal dynamics is reflected in the change in Trump’s fortunes between the two elections.
I forget what year Georgia became more Republican.
The other thing about Georgia is, Michael Bloomberg gave $5 million to Stacey Abrams to stay the hell out of the primary. Supposedly she really is a good organizer and that is a hell of a lot of money. You know she was talking to the Zuckerberg operation, even though ostensibly it was just expanded government.
And if Arizona doesn’t prove your insanity, will you accept that you were conned by TRUMP’s Big Lie? Or will you create a new lie to cover for the last one?
Well, if Trump won, why is Biden in the White House? And Trump is Palm Beach?
Do you believe in the moon landing? Or is that an artifact of the liberal media?
Biden by himself could have never gotten all of those votes. Biden got those votes because he was the Non-Trump.
Yes, an appalling number of Democrats said such a stupid thing. Both Republicans and Democrats are capable of stupid things; it is a wonder that they haven’t destroyed the country.
An exercise in branding:
“Trump’s Big Lie” is that he won. All that is needed is to substitute the word “Trump” for the word “The.”
Act accordingly.
Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™
Everything Moves Left All Of The Time™
Every Republican who is not NeverTrump becomes a Trump sycophant all of the time.
You keep saying that, but I just don’t see it. When I look at all of your anti-Trump columns, you aren’t that great in this sense, either.
I really don’t see the point of you repeating that supposed deep observation.
Again… By definition, The Big Lie employs a controlled media to propagate it.
In this case the media is organized against President Trump. You have it exactly backwards. This is the opposite of The Big Lie.
Yea cause Breitbart, OAN, Newsmax, -sadly- large parts of Fox, had nothing to say about the election.
Patrick Byrne who peripherally worked with Trump and the election situation referred to Ellis (without using her name) as the Mediocrity.
According to Partick Byrne, Trump, for whatever reasons, of old friendship perhaps, insisted that Giuliani remain head of the post-election legal team and lead its tactics. Byrne essentially said that Giuliani was clueless and knowingly arguing from a losing position, because he thought that election fraud cases could never be won. This would seem to explain why the courts were presented as technical arguments.
I find it delusional to insist that Biden unambiguously won and that the cheating was sort of normal. I suppose they have spent little time in countries where fraud is rampant, or in places that don’t even pretend, or actually try to have honest elections in spite of the odds, so don’t understand how normal it is for some groups to cheat. They were so displeased with Trump it just seemed normal to them that more people voted for Biden than ever voted for anyone, in percentages way above normal, after a campaign that Trump carried out explosively and Biden not at all.
Yes, lets talk about facts. According to the official results Biden got 3,461,221 in Pennsylvania and Trump got 3,379,005. Okay, lets see the ballots. Why won’t they allow us to audit them? Why is this the same case in every important swing state? Since when did transparency in elections become controversial?
Through no great insight on your part, you are, in fact, correct here. And the facts as stated make the situation very telling and informative to Texas and the other states going forward.
That this joke of a court, current and historically speaking, that sees no perversion of the Commerce Clause too gross to go along with would NEVER go along with (or even entertain) the clear and valid Texas argument in this case has set a course that will be very interesting in the coming years (or maybe even months). That they also insisted on signaling just how feckless they intend on being in preserving the foundational agreement between the states and how little they can be counted on to protect American liberty throughout those coming events should be very instructive to We the People.
Congratulations.