Include the context of Trump's argument, instead of Christie's soundbite characterization.
In the context of Trump's claim that 2020 was "stolen" (setting aside whether or not that's the case), and he hypothetically proved it; what would the remedy be? The Constitution only addresses when electoral votes are counted and when a President is inaugurated. Would the correction of installing an actually illegitimate President require some sort of setting aside that portion of the Constitution? Could that be what Trump is talking about? Does it make more sense than the media's characterization of it?
What's the alternative? That Trump claimed he was going to set aside the Constitution to become a dictator?
Don't simply cite text. Make your claim and substantiate it. Otherwise this is more hyperbolic running down a rabbit hole, from a media that is documented as lying to sway public perception from what is true (which is gaslighting).
How many times do you have to fall for it before you increase your skepticism? The list is getting awfully long.
Hunter's laptop was declared a hoax. Social media squashed the story. Twitter suspended the New York Post's account. 51 intelligence officials (many actually just contractors) said it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Recently Mike Morell (former acting CIA director) admits it was fabricated, and it was fabricated to give Biden that talking point during one of his debates with Trump. Anthony Blinken makes sure everyone knows "it wasn't my idea".
The Steele Dossier was a hoax Hillary was fined by the FEC for paying for.
The "fine people" hoax was recently admitted to be a hoax - by left-leaning Snopes, no less.
How many years did the media lie to you, and claim Biden's cognitive decline wasn't real? Was it just "cheap fakes", as Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently claimed.
Google Nancy Pelosi's discussion of the "wrap up smear". How many of these interactions and reinforcement of narratives fit the formula she describes?
Bookmarks