Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Fox Business" channel.

  1. 8
  2. 6
  3. 6
  4. 5
  5. 5
  6. 5
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. Perfectly credible...Anyone who knows US elections knows that any mail ins not counted before election day (which in some states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would be all of them since their election laws prohibit early counting) get counted after the in person votes are tallied. Normally, the amount of mail ins aren't high enough to affect the outcome. This time however, a massive amount of people voted by mail, skewed heavily towards democratic voters (from 2:1 to 3:1 depending on the state) despite being equally available to all. On top of that, % reporting can be a bit deceiving as it doesn't properly account for mail ins (again, until now they were more or less an afterthought.) The states simply handled their in person votes first which ended up with seemingly but not actually conclusive % reporting and then did mail ins which were far more skewed in favor of the democratic candidate than the in person ballots and thus had a much more noticeable effect as they were added in. Those states whose laws allowed early counting got their numbers in relatively quickly and without spikes because they started with a huge chunk already processed and included. The straggling states are those whose laws prohibited earlier counting and thus the imbalanced effect came almost entirely in the last bit of counting. Despite what is being said by Republican party officials etc. no one was really surprised by these results. They knew roughly where they needed to be before mail ins were added in order to survive and they simply didn't get there. They're banking on the average person's lack of understanding of how our elections work as a smoke screen / excuse to cover their failure.
    1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. Only coming from Trump's camp. The FBI and DoJ, if anything, have been far more accomodating to the former President than they would have been with any other subject of an investigation. They should have gotten the search warrant the moment he refused to fully comply with the subpoena. Now, the press has been atrocious all around from the left and the right. They've been too hung up on the classified document aspect and have never really tried to explain what's actually going on. Instead they go out of their way make the mundane seem sinister. The affidavit aspect has been their worst transgression. Rather than explain why such affidavits are almost always kept sealed prior to there being an indictment, they've gone out of their way to make it seem like some sort of cover up is behind the DoJ/FBI fighting the attempt to unseal them. It's extremely rare for such affidavits to be unsealed in criminal investigations prior to an indictment (the beginning of the trial phase where defense attorneys can file discovery motions and challenge warrants etc.) The warrant only shows what type of evidence they're looking for. The affidavits will tell you which specific legal violations they're focusing on. Knowing the specifics during the investigation phase is a huge advantage for the target of the investigation as they may have other types of evidence that will be relevant to the specific violation being investigated that the investigators aren't aware of yet and thus it can be hidden/destroyed in advance which would ultimately lessen the effectiveness of the investigation as a whole. It can also tip off accomplices/witnesses etc.
    1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1