Trump clashes with ‘Meet the Press’ interviewer, calls outlet ‘crooked’ before ending segment

FreeinChrist · 2026-06-10T12:15:20-0500

Tuur said:
But would you, knowing something of accounts of election fraud in US history, state that there is no fraud taking place in California?

Provide the proof.
Where is the evidence?

durangodawood · 2026-06-10T12:19:03-0500

Sounds like we just need the normal amount of vigilance, and maybe just a bit extra to be safe.

Certainly no need to make voting harder in any significant way to combat the miniscule amount of fraud that does occur.

(Also I wonder why some people get all agitated about this thing thats not a significant problem, but are silent on other genuine election disasters like superpacs and unlimited anonymous campaign bribing - oops I mean giving.)

essentialsaltes · 2026-06-10T12:19:56-0500

Tuur said:
But would you, knowing something of accounts of election fraud in US history, state that there is no fraud taking place in California?

But would you, knowing something of accounts of mopery in US history, state that there is no mopery taking place in the Oval Office?

I have no burden of proof to demonstrate that the elections are flawless.

If anyone has a beef with the election, let them come forward with their evidence.

essentialsaltes · 2026-06-10T12:21:38-0500

durangodawood said:
genuine election disasters like superpacs and unlimited anonymous campaign bribing - oops I mean giving.)

Why do you hate free speech?

iluvatar5150 · 2026-06-10T12:22:17-0500

Tuur said:
But would you, knowing something of accounts of election fraud in US history, state that there is no fraud taking place in California?

Who says there's absolutely zero voting fraud? Who says there's zero fraud in anything? Every system has at least a little bit.

The argument is not that there's absolutely zero fraud. The argument is that there's not enough to warrant the level of fearmongering that Trump and others have been doing for the last several years, that their fearmongering is largely a lie used to serve other purposes, often to rile up their base, paint Dems as "corrupt," and condition the base to accepting limitations on voting access or, in the case of Jan 6, and actual attempt to illegally overturn a legitimate election.

durangodawood · 2026-06-10T12:26:11-0500

essentialsaltes said:
.....If anyone has a beef with the election, let them come forward with their evidence.

They tried that after 2020. Trump group and people could not shut up about "stolen election". But all they could produce was total garbage for "evidence". Everyone could see this.

In fact many of their efforts in this regard were full of lies and fraud themselves, resulting in embarrassment before the courts and public.

durangodawood · 2026-06-10T12:28:35-0500

essentialsaltes said:
Why do you hate free speech?

Its complicated.

Tuur · 2026-06-10T12:30:04-0500

Akita Suggagaki said:
Why is there never suspicion when Republicans win?

Fair point. What Democrats do Republicans could do. Part might be the long history of shenanigans where Democrats were essentially the only political party. The shenanigans I know and heard of involved Democrats most likely because there were few or no Republicans on the ballot. In such instances, elections were essentially decided in the primaries. That made it Democrat on Democrat voting shenanigans.

Be that as it may, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has claimed Republican fraud, and there were some Democrat claims of Republican fraud in 2024 and 2016 and 2000.

Say it aint so · 2026-06-10T12:46:23-0500

Tuur said:
Fair point. What Democrats do Republicans could do. Part might be the long history of shenanigans where Democrats were essentially the only political party. The shenanigans I know and heard of involved Democrats most likely because there were few or no Republicans on the ballot. In such instances, elections were essentially decided in the primaries. That made it Democrat on Democrat voting shenanigans.

Be that as it may, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has claimed Republican fraud, and there were some Democrat claims of Republican fraud in 2024 and 2016 and 2000.

What are the Democrats doing? The Heritage Foundation (not by any means some left wing Democratic party group) has recorded voter fraud for the last 43 years. They found exactly 1,622 examples of fraud out a 1.5 billion votes. And those were across both parties. So your "I know" "I heard" what the Democrats are doing is just without any semblance of reality.

Bradskii · 2026-06-10T17:42:02-0500

Tuur said:
And in calling him a liar you are claiming he hasn’t.

Yes, I am. I'm absolutely certain of it. The point was that he made the claim and said he had evidence. He was then, rather obviously, asked about it. So what did he do? He went on a rant for a few minutes and complained about umpteen things but never touched on the Californian elections at all. He couldn't, because he was lying and had no answer as to any 'evidence'.

He was lying about it. He'll keep on lying about it. And he will never produce the tiniest shred of evidence. Because he has none. I mean, good grief, he keeps on and on about the 2020 election and how it was stolen from him and there were over 60 court cases about it. All of them were dismissed. The fact that he still maintains fraud is a sign that the guy has a serious mental problem. He's living in his own fantasy world. And he is always asking his supporters to join him there.

People like you are facilitating this nonsense by trying to suggest 'Well, there might be some problems'. You should be calling this type of behaviour. Not excusing it.

Tuur · 2026-06-10T20:13:01-0500

iluvatar5150 said:
Who says there's absolutely zero voting fraud? Who says there's zero fraud in anything? Every system has at least a little bit.

The argument is not that there's absolutely zero fraud. The argument is that there's not enough to warrant the level of fearmongering that Trump and others have been doing for the last several years, that their fearmongering is largely a lie used to serve other purposes, often to rile up their base, paint Dems as "corrupt," and condition the base to accepting limitations on voting access or, in the case of Jan 6, and actual attempt to illegally overturn a legitimate election.

Who says, you ask? By claiming Trump is lying about fraud in California, it's stating that there is no fraud. Frankly, we don't know if he has evidence or not. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. But the only way we can unequivocally say he's lying is if there is no election fraud in California.

A more honest and accurate response to Trump on this is to say if he has evidence, he needs to put up or shut up. Claiming Trump is lying simply because Trump said it doesn't cut it with anyone but the "True Believers."

iluvatar5150 · 2026-06-10T20:23:21-0500

Tuur said:
Who says, you ask? By claiming Trump is lying about fraud in California, it's stating that there is no fraud.

No, it isn't. I've read your posts. You can parse English better than this.

Your assertion would only be correct if Trump had said "there is some non-zero amount of fraud in California." But that isn't what he said. What he said they were "cheating" and that Republicans were losing because the election is "rigged."

That's a far cry from somebody somewhere mailing in a ballot they weren't supposed to.

Tuur said:
Frankly, we don't know if he has evidence or not. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. But the only way we can unequivocally say he's lying is if there is no election fraud in California.

A more honest and accurate response to Trump on this is to say if he has evidence, he needs to put up or shut up. Claiming Trump is lying simply because Trump said it doesn't cut it with anyone but the "True Believers."

Did you watch the Meet the Press interview or read the transcript? He was asked for evidence and his reply was nothing but his usual cockamamey nonsense:

KRISTEN WELKER:

There’s — What? Do you have evidence to support that?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s-- all I have to do is look. All I have to do is look.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But that’s not evidence.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And I listen. And I listen to people. And let’s see what happens.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But sir, that’s not evidence, and that’s how they count the votes in California--

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Do you think it’s appropriate that they have an election and five days later, they’re nowhere close to picking a winner?

KRISTEN WELKER:

State and local officials acknowledge they are slow. They’re urging--

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, they’re crooked.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– they’re urging the votes to be counted quickly. That’s how they vote in California.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They’re crooked just like you’re crooked, your press is crooked. And Meet the Press is crooked.

KRISTEN WELKER:

To be fair, I’m not crooked. But let’s continue.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Really? Well, you play right into their hands then.

That's the answer of somebody who's talking out of their backside. I've been getting the same "I just know" answer from people on CF for years.

Spoiler: they don't know.

But who knows. Maybe he really believes his falsehoods because, like so many other folks who use this same crutch, he can't tell the difference between knowing and believing.

Bradskii · 2026-06-10T20:48:22-0500

Tuur said:
Who says, you ask? By claiming Trump is lying about fraud in California, it's stating that there is no fraud.

How many times are you going to repeat this?

Trump said he had evidence of fraud in the California elections. He doesn't. He was asked what he had and all he was able to come up with (see transcript above) is: 'All I have to do is look'.

That confirms it. He said that all his evidence comprised of was him looking at the election. He also confirms it by saying: 'And let’s see what happens'.

So nothing at the moment, Mr. President? No, of course not. He was just shouting his mouth and was astonished when he was he was pushed to explain himself. He obviously couldn't. Because he had no evidence!

He's lying. And it's about time people like yourself called him out for it rather than make facile arguments excusing his behaviour.

essentialsaltes · 2026-06-10T22:40:12-0500

Tuur said:
By claiming Trump is lying about fraud in California, it's stating that there is no fraud.

Sorry, you have again failed. The burden of proof is not on us. It is on Trump. He can either put up, or shut up.

Sadly, we know he will neither shut up, nor put up any evidence, so we will continue to hear these unsubstantiated claims from him.

Tuur said:
But the only way we can unequivocally say he's lying is if there is no election fraud in California.

Obviously false. Logically speaking, if there is fraud in California, but he has no evidence of it, he is lying. He is the one who could resolve this conundrum. By producing evidence. His failure to do so is telling.

Tuur said:
A more honest and accurate response to Trump on this is to say if he has evidence, he needs to put up or shut up

Correct. Which of these two options has he chosen?

Tuur · 2026-06-11T05:59:40-0500

essentialsaltes said:
Obviously false. Logically speaking, if there is fraud in California, but he has no evidence of it, he is lying. He is the one who could resolve this conundrum. By producing evidence. His failure to do so is telling.

Then present for us proof that he has no evidence to show. Not assumption: proof. Or is not showing evidence only allowed for detractors of Trump? The only other proof that he is lying would be if there is there is knowledge that there is no election fraud in California.

Tuur · 2026-06-11T06:00:40-0500

FreeinChrist said:
Provide the proof.
Where is the evidence?

Like "I wasn't there; you didn't see me; and you can't prove anything, anyway?"

Tuur · 2026-06-11T06:05:00-0500

iluvatar5150 said:
The argument is not that there's absolutely zero fraud. The argument is that there's not enough to warrant the level of fearmongering that Trump and others have been doing for the last several years, that their fearmongering is largely a lie used to serve other purposes, often to rile up their base, paint Dems as "corrupt," and condition the base to accepting limitations on voting access or, in the case of Jan 6, and actual attempt to illegally overturn a legitimate election.

Like claims of fraud and suppression when it suits the Democrats?

The interesting thing is that it usually start with "Fraud? What fraud? There's no fraud," then becomes. "Oh, there's a little fraud, but not enough to matter."

iluvatar5150 · 2026-06-11T07:47:50-0500

Tuur said:
The interesting thing is that it usually start with "Fraud? What fraud? There's no fraud," then becomes. "Oh, there's a little fraud, but not enough to matter."

I'm starting to think this strawman fantasy of yours is a choice.

Akita Suggagaki · 2026-06-11T11:57:25-0500

Tuur said:
Then present for us proof that he has no evidence to show.

Are you presuming he has evidence but for some inexplicable reason is not showing it when? Why?

Prospector · 2026-06-11T14:00:44-0500

Tuur said:
Couldn’t or wouldn’t. Either way, that doesn’t mean that things out there are above suspicion, which some here are claiming.

Maybe there’s nothing to statements made by some LA homeless that they were paid to vote. Not exactly an unimpeachable source. Kind of a dated practice, too. Still, that’s something that surfaced yesterday.

A hundred suspicions don't make a proof.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Trump clashes with ‘Meet the Press’ interviewer, calls outlet ‘crooked’ before ending segment

CF Advisory team

re Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

re Member

re Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads