Yep...for as bad as this PPT is, it is what he is not sharing that is even more important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meadows wanted to invoke the National Guard to essentially battle with the Capitol Police.

Lock him up.

Senator Schwarz’s response is so on the nail. There seems to be such a disconnect with many on this board. I am fairly to the left and yes, some on the left have gone overboard with some of with some of their priorities. But they don’t hold much power, And to continue to vote for Republicans because you don’t like the “walk policies” is utterly irresponsible. I simply can’t get it my head around how people don’t think this wasn’t a big deal and that we’re not doing everything possible to stop the Republican party in its current form from holding power.

There is a huge disconnect. All these people who claim to be “moderate” or “independent”: nope. You cannot vote for the party of sedition, of ending democracy and claim to be moderate.

Anonymous wrote:Meadows wanted to invoke the National Guard to essentially battle with the Capitol Police.

Lock him up.

Senator Schwarz’s response is so on the nail. There seems to be such a disconnect with many on this board. I am fairly to the left and yes, some on the left have gone overboard with some of with some of their priorities. But they don’t hold much power, And to continue to vote for Republicans because you don’t like the “walk policies” is utterly irresponsible. I simply can’t get it my head around how people don’t think this wasn’t a big deal and that we’re not doing everything possible to stop the Republican party in its current form from holding power.

Can you imaging the stink being made, given what we saw with Benghazi, if, oh say, Obama had deployed the national guard to take out racists in the south? Or if any other Chief of Staff was being referred to the Justice Department for crimes by the Congress?

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/12/meadows-jan-6-national-guard-trump-524133

SO much has happened around this that I didn’t remember this gross comment from trump, which evidently came out publicly months ago: “The comment also aligns with testimony from former Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who said that in a Jan. 3 conversation with Trump, the then-president told him to "do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."” Big mafia-type energy to that comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's upsetting is that the presentation makes a lot of allegations without ever acknowledging that these issues had been reviewed by CISA and determined not to have influenced the outcome of the election.

I don't think it's bonkers to note that using foreign ballot counting software or hardware comes with risks that need to be weighed. But it is bonkers to move forward on overturning an election based on a theoretical risk after it had been reviewed and found to be a non-issue in this particular election.

Also, the PowerPoint presentation itself is crazy. The double exclamation points, the dramatic "the end" last slide. I was left kind of speechless.

Was any “foreign ballot counting software or hardware” actually used?

I'm not an expert, but if the basic facts laid out about the technology and ownership of these systems is correctly described on the PowerPoint slide, it would appear so.

You are right.. you are not an expert. But this guy is, and he said the 2020 election was the most secure election, ever.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-krebs-2020-election-rumors-60-minutes-2020-11-29/

Yes-- this is the CISA report I was referencing. Way to look for an argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's upsetting is that the presentation makes a lot of allegations without ever acknowledging that these issues had been reviewed by CISA and determined not to have influenced the outcome of the election.

I don't think it's bonkers to note that using foreign ballot counting software or hardware comes with risks that need to be weighed. But it is bonkers to move forward on overturning an election based on a theoretical risk after it had been reviewed and found to be a non-issue in this particular election.

Also, the PowerPoint presentation itself is crazy. The double exclamation points, the dramatic "the end" last slide. I was left kind of speechless.

Was any “foreign ballot counting software or hardware” actually used?

I'm not an expert, but if the basic facts laid out about the technology and ownership of these systems is correctly described on the PowerPoint slide, it would appear so.

You are right.. you are not an expert. But this guy is, and he said the 2020 election was the most secure election, ever.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-krebs-2020-election-rumors-60-minutes-2020-11-29/

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/12/meadows-jan-6-national-guard-trump-524133

Meadows wanted to invoke the National Guard to essentially battle with the Capitol Police.

Lock him up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's upsetting is that the presentation makes a lot of allegations without ever acknowledging that these issues had been reviewed by CISA and determined not to have influenced the outcome of the election.

I don't think it's bonkers to note that using foreign ballot counting software or hardware comes with risks that need to be weighed. But it is bonkers to move forward on overturning an election based on a theoretical risk after it had been reviewed and found to be a non-issue in this particular election.

Also, the PowerPoint presentation itself is crazy. The double exclamation points, the dramatic "the end" last slide. I was left kind of speechless.

Was any “foreign ballot counting software or hardware” actually used?

I'm not an expert, but if the basic facts laid out about the technology and ownership of these systems is correctly described on the PowerPoint slide, it would appear so.

That is sort of a big "if", no?

Like, if there was anything about it that was true, it would be a big deal. Here, the big deal is that the White House was using these lies to justify their illegal actions. There is a reason it is called "the big lie"

I think it's pretty well established that foreign adversaries meddle in our elections, and it isn't crazy to think there may be issues with foreign vote counting technology. This is the entire issue with Huawei and ZTE, and it quickly went from theory to actual fact. So you're focusing on the wrong thing if you're jumping on me for *considering* the possibility that foreign hackers could hack foreign technology. But regardless-- it doesn't matter because that ppt show was written well after CISA released its review and said the technology wasn't hacked and the other investigations showed that while there were possibly isolated cases of voter fraud, it wasn't coordinated and didn't impact the election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's upsetting is that the presentation makes a lot of allegations without ever acknowledging that these issues had been reviewed by CISA and determined not to have influenced the outcome of the election.

I don't think it's bonkers to note that using foreign ballot counting software or hardware comes with risks that need to be weighed. But it is bonkers to move forward on overturning an election based on a theoretical risk after it had been reviewed and found to be a non-issue in this particular election.

Also, the PowerPoint presentation itself is crazy. The double exclamation points, the dramatic "the end" last slide. I was left kind of speechless.

Was any “foreign ballot counting software or hardware” actually used?

I'm not an expert, but if the basic facts laid out about the technology and ownership of these systems is correctly described on the PowerPoint slide, it would appear so.

That is sort of a big "if", no?

Like, if there was anything about it that was true, it would be a big deal. Here, the big deal is that the White House was using these lies to justify their illegal actions. There is a reason it is called "the big lie"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's upsetting is that the presentation makes a lot of allegations without ever acknowledging that these issues had been reviewed by CISA and determined not to have influenced the outcome of the election.

I don't think it's bonkers to note that using foreign ballot counting software or hardware comes with risks that need to be weighed. But it is bonkers to move forward on overturning an election based on a theoretical risk after it had been reviewed and found to be a non-issue in this particular election.

Also, the PowerPoint presentation itself is crazy. The double exclamation points, the dramatic "the end" last slide. I was left kind of speechless.

Was any “foreign ballot counting software or hardware” actually used?

I'm not an expert, but if the basic facts laid out about the technology and ownership of these systems is correctly described on the PowerPoint slide, it would appear so.

OMG the whole reason why everyone is outraged about the PowerPoint is that it’s full of lies. Get yourself together.

LOL, so you are believing the Kraken?

Like, the group that went 0-61 in court cases?

Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's upsetting is that the presentation makes a lot of allegations without ever acknowledging that these issues had been reviewed by CISA and determined not to have influenced the outcome of the election.

I don't think it's bonkers to note that using foreign ballot counting software or hardware comes with risks that need to be weighed. But it is bonkers to move forward on overturning an election based on a theoretical risk after it had been reviewed and found to be a non-issue in this particular election.

Also, the PowerPoint presentation itself is crazy. The double exclamation points, the dramatic "the end" last slide. I was left kind of speechless.

Was any “foreign ballot counting software or hardware” actually used?

I'm not an expert, but if the basic facts laid out about the technology and ownership of these systems is correctly described on the PowerPoint slide, it would appear so.