4 ms·
He was trying to overturn the result of a democratically conducted election. You don't get to "both sides" this.
by pmiller2 6y ago
He was trying to overturn the result of a democratically conducted election. You don't get to "both sides" this.
- nostromo 6y agoDemocrats tried to disrupt the electoral college vote in 2016, and there were many faithless voters. They failed, but they tried. Not to mention four years of telling their base the election was stolen or hacked, followed by a pointless impeachment. This is the new norm. And both sides are indeed complicit and escalating.
- pmiller2 6y agoYou failed to mention that Clinton lost 5 electoral votes as a result of those shenanigans, while Trump lost 2. None of the faithless electors voted for the other major candidate. How does that constitute "Democrats" trying to overturn the election? What's more, Clinton herself was not the one trying to supposedly "disrupt the electoral college vote." If you're going to make up a story, at least make it consistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016... Edit: Also: > “What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-statement-on-senate-intel-release-of-volume-5-of-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...