re: Steve Scalise Frustrates Chris Wallace- Election Stolen

quote:

---

Since you seem to be implying that you know the answer to that, why don't you just explain it?

---

I've explained direct irrefutable fraud from two Biden electors in Wisconsin.

I'm sorry the government checks you receive don't cover the medication you need for basic brain function. But that's not our fault.

quote:

---

So Scalise wusses out on his response? Shocking. Scalise is a swamp rat

---

You’re getting downvoted but he without a doubt was afraid to drop some truth bombs. I like Scalise and am glad that he didn’t deny it was stolen, however, we need leaders who don’t mince words and aren’t afraid to say what they mean & mean what they say.

I was with my daddy listening to this and we were both disappointed. Scalise proved that he doesn’t recognize the fact that American Marxists are at war with us bc he answered like a politician riding the fence bc he’s more worried about upsetting those who disagree than the fact that America is under attack.

He also refused to give a straight answer on how he’d vote over Trump’s key advisors “resisting the subpoenas and holding the people who resist the subpoenas in criminal contempt of Congress”. We wanted to hear an answer & he refused to say.


WALLACE: Congressman, I want to talk about one more subject with you. The

committee investigating the January 6th insurrection has subpoenaed some

documents and also some witnesses, key Trump advisors around that time.

Now, President Biden announced this week that he is going to deny former

President Trump's claim of executive privilege. He wants to release some of

the records. President Trump is likely to take the issue to court.

If it comes to a vote in the House for resisting these subpoenas and

holding the people who resist the subpoenas in criminal contempt of

Congress, how will you vote?

SCALISE: Well, first of all, these are legal issues. And you got a number

of people that have been subpoenaed, that are complying. They're trying to

comply. But it's a legal process.

And, you know, they've got attorneys. By the way, the House of

Representatives, Speaker Pelosi spent millions of taxpayer dollars hiring

attorneys, too. There are Justice Department cases moving forward. They've

arrested hundreds of people.

(CROSSTALK)

SCALISE: Yeah?

WALLACE: I just -- I don't mean to interrupt, but we're running out of

time. Specifically, the way it would come to the court is they would resist

the subpoena and then the House would vote to hold them in criminal

contempt, and then it would go to the court.

My question is, if it comes to a vote on the House floor to hold these

people who are ignoring House committee subpoenas to produce documents or

testify, how would you vote?

SCALISE: Well, I don't speculate on the bill that's not before me. It's

not before me right now. I voted against the commission because it was

heavily stacked to be a partisan commission.

Look, they don't want to spend any time investigating the origin of COVID.

That, by the way, matters to the families of over 600,000 Americans. They

don't want to hold an investigation into what happened in Afghanistan, the

complete botched withdrawal that led to 13 American soldiers dying.

Why don't they focus on getting our economy back on track, get an FDA

commissioner to get COVID under control?

They want to keep revisiting --

quote:

---

I've explained direct irrefutable fraud from two Biden electors in Wisconsin.

---

Assuming that is true, how does that interface with a state "decertifying" and SCOTUS "overturning" the election?

Hint: Niether of those had any effect on whether either of those were qualified voters.

quote:

---

And we knew all of that in November. What has been done?

---

That's not true. We/you all knew that BEFORE the election.

But you/ Repubs didn't say anything before the election because it only became a thing when Trump lost.

And, in not a single one of these instances, did it have a material effect on the election.

That is why Scalise limited his claim to the nebulous -'states didn't follow their rules'- and the Repubs' catch-all favorite- 'violate the Constitution', so he doesn't have to give examples and quantify how these egregious violations actually and materially affected the vote.

quote:

---

I'm not worried about down votes from the mouth breathers in LA that worship their politicians. They cheer because their politicians said something good on Facebook and fox news, even though they get nothing done in real life. The people of Louisiana deserve the people they elect.

---

I wasn’t insinuating you care about down votes.... I was saying I agree even though so many don’t realize that he did mince words.

quote:

---

so many don’t realize that he did mince words.

---

Again, Wallace wanted to deal in areas of speculation. Massive fraud in the 2020 election will eventually be proven, but we are not there yet. So as yet, it remains highly probable, but speculative.

Wallace asserts without evidence that there was no fraud. In contrast to the probability of massive fraud, Wallace's claim is a highly improbable assertion. But he'd refuse to discuss it in terms of probability. Instead, he'd demand Scalise PROVE assertions of fraud are 100% correct. That is a contrarian's game.

Scalese refused to play. SS forced the conversation back onto territory which was both egregious and indisputable. Wallace did not want that.

When dealing with a dishonest broker or partisan hack like Wallace, addressing the indisputable is absolutely the correct approach. BTW, Wallace has never acknowledged what Scalese was addressing. That is how fricking ridiculous Chris Wallace is.

quote:

---

Millions of fake ballots.

---

Thousands and thousands created at the Fulton Co DVS test center alone. That is according to testimony under oath ... disputed by no one.

Are you now disputing that?

quote:

---

The Ninjas couldn't even do a simple recount.

---

Not an audit.