Trump CNN townhall last night

Update III, 5-12-23:


Update III, Bongino on Trump CNN Townhall

Bongino covers a few points of the Townhall, of which I saw most of them previously. As mentioned, I didn't see all of the Townhall. Evidently, I saw more than I thought. Unless there was a lot more that I missed, I must have seen the better part of it.

Here is an embed of Bongino's comments, plus some other stuff not related to the Townhall. One thing in particular, is a grifter type ( says Bongino) who tried to latch on to Bongino when he ran for office. That would be about at the 29 minute mark. Bongino says he didn't reply to the guy, and the guy never did get the message. I would think that a non-answer to your attempts at communication should be a pretty big clue. Another one could be when Bongino decided to "show the receipts" on his podcast. If I was in that guy's shoes, I'd hope I'd get the message sooner than that. It must be embarrassing to get called out like that. Or maybe not. Maybe those guys aren't normal guys.

Bongino showed the guy melting down over Trump's appearance on the Townhall. It seems that some folks think that using really bad language like that helps them get their point across. I don't know about that. Not that my language is all that great, but at least I TRY to improve.

One more thing... Since when is it okay to censor people that you don't like? Evidently, the idea that you can do that has taken hold in this country. If the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be screaming "free speech". I recall when Bush was in office, these people were whining about free speech when nobody was "canceling" them or anything. All anyone ever did with respect to them is to answer back, but they don't even want to allow that. These people have a lot of gall to complain about free speech, or freedom, or democracy. They don't respect it themselves. If anyone on the GOP side even brought that up, it would be an improvement. Many of them just seem to lie down and be door mats for the left.

Here's the video...

5-12-23:


Second Update on Trump-CNN Townhall

As usual, the focus is on the wrong things... So, let's at least try here (if nowhere else) to focus on what the issues really are. It isn't about CNN's and Fox's ratings. The question is this: What really happened on January 6th, and what really happened before? Nobody is asking the right questions, it seems to me.

I watched the Townhall from the beginning again, and didn't get far into it. Caitlyn Collins asked about "suspending the Constitution". There's no way that Trump meant it that way, and he denied that interpretation. But the rest of the usual suspects jumped all over it claiming that Trump wanted to suspend the Constitution. To the extent that Trump could have said something similiar is not being debated here. The question is INTENT. Does Trump intend to suspend the Constitution? He said no to that question at the Townhall. I'm sure that he INTENT wasn't to say any such thing, as is being claimed.

Indeed, why should he? If the Constitution was actually followed on that day, he would be president now. Or he would have stood a good chance of being president right now. Why? Because in those states that were being contested, the state legislatures were controlled by Republicans. There's no guarantee that they'd have turned the election back to Trump, but they could have. The riot was set up in order to keep that possibility from ever being mentioned in the debate in Congress. Once Congress called an emergency, that was the end of all debate, and Biden was installed as President. So, why in the world would Trump want to derail a process that would have given him a possible victory?

By the same token, why wouldn't Trump's enemies want to derail that process? I believe that is exactly why they did, and why they are supressing all discussion as best they can so that they can continue to get away with it. That is why Trump's enemies need the narrative that there was an insurrection so that they can continue with this charade. That is why Tucker Carlson's show was cancelled. Nobody is going to be allowed to see the truth.

As before, I didn't watch all of the Townhall. But that one question that did get asked stood out, and I stopped there. This is dangerous territory for the perpertrators, and is probably the real reason they are getting freaked out. Chances are though, that the lie will continue to live on.

Trump's fans say that he won this exchange. Not really. Unless he starts to ask these questions himself, he will not be successful, in my opinion. This has to get down to the truth of the matter. What really happened during this 2020 election, and will we ever know? If those in charge have it their way, we will never know. He didn't help himself when he said something to the effect that the Constitution needs to be suspended. But he didn't mean that, in my opinion. There's no reason to give up on the Constitution, but there is plenty of reason to give up on this ruling class. They do not care about the Constitution nor the truth. That's especially true of those like Liz Cheney.

She jumped all over that statement that Trump made, and it clearly shows an agenda. Are we to really believe that those people who support Trump really want the Constitution to go away? That is ridiculous. It is galling, especially for people like Cheney to say that when she was part of the kangaroo court process of the select committee. There is no way that these people are interested in the truth, or they would have had a fair and honest process. That committee was certainly not any such thing as a fair and honest process.

first update:

5-12-23:
Update on Trump CNN Townhall

A little thought on the matter will show that something is being overlooked here. No mention was ever made on the fact of what was the role of the Vice President with respect to the counting of the electoral votes. The questions were being asked by the moderator, Caitlyn ? (nasty) of CNN. Then, the audience was allowed to ask questions. None of those questions, unless asked by someone in the audience, were asked on that issue.

The truth of the matter is that the Constitution is silent on that question. It is left to the Congress and the Vice President as to what he will do in that situation. It WAS mentioned that the law has since been changed. However, a question could then be asked as to whether or not Congress can stipulate what the duty of the Vice President actually is in that situation. Only the states have that authority according to the Constitution.

Vice President Pence decided not to throw it back to the state legislatures. There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids this, and one could ask what harm that there would be in that if it were to happen. It was decided that there would indeed be harm in that. The only harm possible would be that the results reported to Congress originally would have been overturned---meaning Trump is still President. The question is whether or not that can be done.

To do so would not end "Democracy". The elections are set up by the state legislatures. If the state authorities followed the laws set forth by the respective state legislatures, then the system was working as intended. How would throwing it back to the state legislatures have done anything to upset what is in the Constitution? The Constitution does not provide for the direct election of the president by a vote from the people. It is a process set forth by the state legislatures. It is a fair question whether or not the will of the various legislatures was actually honored. Therefore, to ask the state legislatures that question is not out of bounds or illegal in any way.

But Pence decided not to do that. He claimed he had no such authority. One should ask why not? What prevents the question from being asked since that the is process that the Constitution delegated to the states? If the states cannot answer that question, then what authority do the state legislatures have?

The question could have been asked of the Supreme Court. If the Court refused to take it up, then it was avoiding the issue. If it wasn't asked of the Court, then it would seem that this point is being missed. Probably quite deliberately so, I suspect. It is rather easy for me to get suspicious these days when it comes to these people.

I don't know if anyone in the audience asked or not. It has been said that the network shut the Townhall down early. Perhaps it wasn't asked, but only because the network didn't want anybody to ask such a question. It is also quite possible that the Congress itself didn't want that question asked, and that is why the riot was set up so as to be able to declare an emergency and shut down all proceedings under an emergency umbrella that would install Biden as president.

I smell a rat. But this a lonely off the main highway sort of place on the webs. What difference would it make if I were to ask that question here on this blog? Who would pay attention? Anybody? Who would care? Anybody?

5-11-23, Original post below:

It's on Rumble, if anyone is interested. How long it will be on Rumble is anyone's guess.

There are many stories out there that want to tell you what to think about it. However, if you want to see for yourself, you can watch it on Rumble. I did. It did seem like a friendly audience. The host was hostile, though. She kept up with the boiler plate jive-ass crap that the media loves to run. The media doesn't seem to understand that they have no credibility.

There are those who say that CNN shouldn't have provided Trump with a platform. You can say many things to that, including the obvious fact that CNN's ratings haven't been too good lately. Fox used to be the leader, but they decided to fire Tucker Carlson, and Fox's ratings are going into the tank. If there's any reason for CNN to give Trump a platform, it was to take advantage of the self-inflicted wound that Fox gave itself for firing Tucker Carlson. In other words, this could put CNN on top. Fox is going to the bottom, since they obviously fired Carlson to silence him about January 6th.

The Democrats and their media accomplices want a one-sided narrative that they always control. Obviously, they are not happy that Trump got the opportunity to give his side of the story.

I watched only about 10 or 15 minutes of the townhall. There wasn't a whole lot there that was new. The only new thing maybe, is that the other side, Trump's side, was allowed to be presented. They love to present the fact that Trump has been indicted, but what they don't want anyone to see is that other side. This includes the evidence in the courts, which is clearly adverse to the rule of law, which they fraudulently claim to defend. Why wouldn't they get indictments, and even convictions with such a one-sided process?

I don't need to see anything though. The January 6th riot was a pre-planned event conducted by the Democrats so as to put an end to any dispute over the election outcome, and to install Joe Biden as President. It is very suspicious, therefore, because of "cui bono"-- who benefits. It is very convenient to have that as an opportunity and excuse to shut down all opposition and controversy. The deplatforming is part of that effort, which was to keep this a secret. People won't be allowed to know what really happened on January 6th. The tapes are still being kept secret.

What happens as a consequence to this is unclear. It appears that the Democrats want to jail Trump, and to disqualify him for office. Whether or not that succeeds is hard to say. They've gotten this far, so it may work. They are getting a lot of help from the RINOS. The RINOS and their sponsors, the Democrats, are dishonoring themselves and the country.