Fact-checking Donald Trump’s tweet firing Christopher Krebs

[tulc]

PolitiFact - Fact-checking Donald Trump’s tweet firing Christopher Krebs

Trump tweeted that "the recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud."

A multitude of evidence supports the statement released by Krebs’ former agency that the election was not rigged.

Trump’s claim is not grounded in evidence. We rate it Pants on Fire!

tulc(this is President Trump's 151st Pants on Fire)

 

[Blade]

this ones easy "Krebs’ recent statement that the Nov. 3 election “the most secure in American history”

Clearly wrong. I can still hear Nancy Pelosi 2017-2020 "the election (2016) was high jacked.

 

[tulc]

this ones easy "Krebs’ recent statement that the Nov. 3 election “the most secure in American history”

Clearly wrong. I can still hear Nancy Pelosi 2017-2020 "the election (2016) was high jacked.

uhmmm...I'm not sure why you seem to think those statements have anything to do with each other. Two different people commenting on two different things four years apart.
tulc(seriously)

 

[disciple Clint]

uhmmm...I'm not sure why you seem to think those statements have anything to do with each other. Two different people commenting on two different things four years apart.
tulc(seriously)

Well tulc looks like more and more things are surfacing that indicate that this election was far from the most secure.

 

[Jamsie]

Well tulc looks like more and more things are surfacing that indicate that this election was far from the most secure.

"More and more things are surfacing..." The statement has no meaning. "The statement is wrong." That statement has no meaning. "The election is rigged and crooked" Show me. "Here is some actual verifiable evidence that has been investigated and found true" Now we have a sensible statement.

So far we have myriad allegations that the courts find completely lacking... the response from trump supporters "we know its true" - that statement has no meaning.

 

[miamited]

Well tulc looks like more and more things are surfacing that indicate that this election was far from the most secure.

Hi DC,

Just curious, and I know that providing evidence to support claims is pretty thin these days concerning 'alleged' vote fraud...but would you be willing to expound on your post with some links to evidence that supports your claim? By evidence, I'm not asking for articles of 'he said, she said', but actual verifiable evidence of some person or algorithm that has actually done something that effected the outcome of the presidential election. Some evidence where one can follow the 'paper trail' that shows a changed or manipulated vote actually being cast.

As I say, I'm just curious. So far, even the Trump 'fraud election team' has folded and been thrown out of court on that small, but important detail of legal wrangling. Show me the evidence...please!

One of my favorite sayings regarding people who just make unverified claims is that I can call myself the Queen of England. However, getting to sleep tonight in Buckingham Palace will prove to be a bit difficult for me. You see, it's the person who lays their head down on the pillow at the royal residence who really is the monarch of England.

God bless,
ted

 

[hislegacy]

There is more evidence of election fraud, first hand attested to. Than there was presented to impeach the President.

just sayin.

 

[tulc]

There is more evidence of election fraud, first hand attested to.

...you mean "someone said/saw!!" evidence, or actual "this will stand up in court" sort of evidence? Because so far? There seems more "I saw this!!" and not so much "stand up".

Than there was presented to impeach the President.

So you're thinking all his cases are going to get tossed out as well?

just sayin.

tulc(is just waitn')

 

[miamited]

There is more evidence of election fraud, first hand attested to. Than there was presented to impeach the President.

just sayin.

Hi HL,

You see, that's what I'm having troubles with. Many keep hammering away at a claim that there is soooo much evidence to support a position...

But when asked, well, ok, what is that evidence? Then we get claims like, "Oh it's too serious for us to reveal it now." Or some such blabbering. Giuliani, when pressed on the issue, says that the revelation of such evidence would be dangerous to those who will testify of such evidence. Not even Rudolph is willing to share any of the evidence that he's 'claiming' supports his claims. What is this 'more evidence of election fraud' that you are claiming is out there? By the way, the Senate didn't allow any evidence to be presented to impeach the president. So, only one would do the trick. Have you got one piece of evidence?

I was reading that the voting machine company, Dominion, put an algorithm in the machines to create votes for Biden...but no one has been able to produce the program that contains this 'claimed' algorithm. There are no programmers who have looked at the myriad lines of code that must be working in these machines that have said, "Yes! Right there are lines of code that keep a count of the Trump or Biden votes and every time it reaches some tipping point, it 'manufactures' votes for the other party." So far it is all just baseless and factless claims of what someone 'says' is happening. Look, I know! I'm the Queen of England!!!

Just one verifiable piece of evidence is all I'm asking for. So far, 80% of the legal challenges that the GOP have brought against the veracity of the election results have been dismissed or withdrawn based on that simple legal point. Do you really expect us all to believe that our judicial system doesn't know what evidence is? One judge even laughed a case out of court telling the attorneys that 'saying that they heard that someone said' is simply 3rd party hearsay testimony. It would seem that Trump's attorneys don't even know or understand the basic concept of legal evidence. Rudolph was literally stumped by one judge when questioned about some of the legal concepts that courts are held to uphold. Really!!!?? How long will this circus go one?

God bless,
ted

 

[hislegacy]

you mean "someone said/saw!!" evidence, or actual "this will stand up in court" sort of evidence? Because so far? There seems more "I saw this!!" and not so much "stand up".

No not one item in the impeachment was admissible in a court of law because it was hearsay from unverifiable sources.

Even the star witnesses showed they very clearly in cross examination.

thanks for asking.

 

[miamited]

No not one item in the impeachment was admissible in a court of law because it was hearsay from unverifiable sources.

Even the star witnesses showed they very clearly in cross examination.

thanks for asking.

Hi HL,

First of all, 'evidence' in an impeachment hearing doesn't have to fit the requirement for a court of law. Impeachments are handled in the Senate. Now, surely arguments that some piece of evidence may not fit what would be accepted in a court of law will be made against such evidence. However, we will never know. The Senate, being Republican held, merely refused to allow any evidence to be submitted and voted to not impeach. It's all legal, but that then doesn't mean what you seem to be claiming that it meant. That the evidence was somehow tainted.

You then wrote: Even the star witnesses showed they very clearly in cross examination.

Again, what's your evidence for that claim. What 'star witness' said what that wasn't admissible in a court of law?

God bless,
ted

 

[tulc]

No not one item in the impeachment was admissible in a court of law because it was hearsay from unverifiable sources.

Even the star witnesses showed they very clearly in cross examination.

thanks for asking.

So...that would be like all the "evidence" President Trump's crack lawyer team has found to support his attempt to hide the fact he lost, by a landslide, to a guy who conducted his campaign from his basement?
tulc(is just curious)

 

[Jamsie]

No not one item in the impeachment was admissible in a court of law because it was hearsay from unverifiable sources.
Even the star witnesses showed they very clearly in cross examination.
thanks for asking.

Just so you know Vindman was involved in the call between trump and Zelensky...not hear say! His concerns were shared to government lawyers...and also:

"Out of 100 senators, zero believe you on the argument there is no quid pro quo," Cruz said to Trump's defense team, according to the senator's own recollection that he shared with CNN on Wednesday. "Stop making it," Cruz added.

Lamar Alexander: The Tennessee Republican said that it has been amply established that Donald Trump used a hold on defense aid to pressure the Ukrainians to undertake the investigations that he wanted, and that this was, as he mildly put it, inappropriate. But this misconduct, he argued, doesn’t rise to the level of the high crimes and misdemeanors required to remove a president from office.

 

[disciple Clint]

"More and more things are surfacing..." The statement has no meaning. "The statement is wrong." That statement has no meaning. "The election is rigged and crooked" Show me. "Here is some actual verifiable evidence that has been investigated and found true" Now we have a sensible statement.

So far we have myriad allegations that the courts find completely lacking... the response from trump supporters "we know its true" - that statement has no meaning.

At this point we do not know what is true and what is not true because the facts are surfacing as time passes, there is enough smoke to indicate that something is burning, the question is what and why. I am not going to make and determinations until the facts are known, sounds like your mind is made up regardless of what facts may come to the surface.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hi DC,

Just curious, and I know that providing evidence to support claims is pretty thin these days concerning 'alleged' vote fraud...but would you be willing to expound on your post with some links to evidence that supports your claim? By evidence, I'm not asking for articles of 'he said, she said', but actual verifiable evidence of some person or algorithm that has actually done something that effected the outcome of the presidential election. Some evidence where one can follow the 'paper trail' that shows a changed or manipulated vote actually being cast.

As I say, I'm just curious. So far, even the Trump 'fraud election team' has folded and been thrown out of court on that small, but important detail of legal wrangling. Show me the evidence...please!

One of my favorite sayings regarding people who just make unverified claims is that I can call myself the Queen of England. However, getting to sleep tonight in Buckingham Palace will prove to be a bit difficult for me. You see, it's the person who lays their head down on the pillow at the royal residence who really is the monarch of England.

God bless,
ted

I only know what I read in the news papers and see on tv. I am waiting to see just what develops but there is definitely smoke, now is there fire? Trump legal assault exposes election shenanigans — but faces high hurdles

 

[tulc]

Well it appears he's convinced his base of it...as to whether he can convince a court is another matter. All they needed was a tweet from President Trump and they're convinced (no other proof needed) courts on the other hand? They tend to be more interested in actual facts. And so far? None of them seem to be convinced.
tulc(even judges appointed by President Trump aren't convinced)

 

[disciple Clint]

Well it appears he's convinced his base of it...as to whether he can convince a court is another matter. All they needed was a tweet from President Trump and they're convinced (no other proof needed) courts on the other hand? They tend to be more interested in actual facts. And so far? None of them seem to be convinced.
tulc(even judges appointed by President Trump aren't convinced)

We are in the first round of a multi round fight and it is just a little premature to declare a winner based on points yet but go right ahead. I understand the MSM keeps saying there is no evidence and his claims are frivolous and some people accept everything that the MSM says especially if it reinforces their beliefs about Trump but most of us have seen how many times that they have been absolutely wrong so we will wait until all the facts come out and then decide.

 

[tulc]

We are in the first round of a multi round fight and it is just a little premature to declare a winner based on points yet but go right ahead. I understand the MSM keeps saying there is no evidence and his claims are frivolous and some people accept everything that the MSM says especially if it reinforces their beliefs about Trump but most of us have seen how many times that they have been absolutely wrong so we will wait until all the facts come out and then decide.

and the facts (like the recount in Georgia) will say President elect Biden will be President Biden come Jan 20th.
Georgia recount confirms Biden victory and finds no widespread fraud after statewide audit - CNNPolitics
tulc(is just sayn')

 

[disciple Clint]

and the facts (like the recount in Georgia) will say President elect Biden will be President Biden come Jan 20th.
Georgia recount confirms Biden victory and finds no widespread fraud after statewide audit - CNNPolitics
tulc(is just sayn')

There seems to be people including Biden and the liberal media who are in a real push to have Trump to give up his rights and just yield to their desires. I have to question why, what is the concern? They are much more worried than they should be, why is that?

 

[Jamsie]

At this point we do not know what is true and what is not true because the facts are surfacing as time passes, there is enough smoke to indicate that something is burning, the question is what and why. I am not going to make and determinations until the facts are known, sounds like your mind is made up regardless of what facts may come to the surface.

Actually we do know what is true... no facts are surfacing, for if there were they would be capable of elaborating them, but they can't! When carlson says "When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her," Carlson said. "When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given any evidence either. Nor did she provide any today."

"He noted that Powell did say that electronic voting was dangerous, but never proved that any vote was flipped to Biden from Trump via software."

The facts are known, you simply reject the overwhelming evidence that there is no evidence of widespread/significant fraud. Strange that republicans won't even believe republicans... How much time is enough? The reality is of much more import than trump's ego ...