2,318 Mark Meadows texts reveal the plot to overturn Biden's election

Days before the inauguration, Mark Meadows got this text:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/featu...ess-about-plans-to-overturn-the-2020-election

Was this the text from some deranged Trump MAGA follower? No, it was Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) who texted Mark Meadows to declare martial law (though he spelled it as 'marshall', just like MTG awhile back but she's a wackadoodle, but I never saw Norman on the right wing nutjob list).

TPM got a hold of these texts, and they reveal some very disturbing things what were on the minds of Trump's inner circle.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/a-plot-to-overturn-an-american-election

TPM has obtained the 2,319 text messages that Mark Meadows, who was President Trump’s last White House chief of staff, turned over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack. Today, we are publishing The Meadows Texts, a series based on an in-depth analysis of these extraordinary — and disturbing — communications.

The vast majority of Meadows’ texts described in this series are being made public for the very first time. They show the senior-most official in the Trump White House communicating with members of Congress, state-level politicians, and far-right activists as they work feverishly to overturn Trump’s loss in the 2020 election. The Meadows texts illustrate in moment-to-moment detail an authoritarian effort to undermine the will of the people and upend the American democratic system as we know it.

It's like this, Repubs, please do not accuse Democrats of 'authoritarianism' of mundane things like mask mandates while your guys were plotting a coup.

MBFC's factual, credibility & bias rating:

Talking Points Memo:

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (only one failed fact check)
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

 

How did TPM get these texts?

Regardless of the content, did it fall under the Freedom of Information Act or something?

 

Not sure, but there are a lot of disturbing texts, and these nutjobs are going to control the house soon. This tells me that when they finish all their investigations and write a report, it won't be worth spit, given these traitors tried to overturn the election, the GOP caucus is a fuctangle of conspiracy theorists and nutjobs who have no business being holding an office of public Trust. I hope the DOJ busts them all.

 

Please provide the actual texts the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack had.... This is just a narrated TPM article without verification... we can read the actual texts ourselves and evaluate them.... your ability to post the truth on here is lacking.... and a hearsay article ain't cutting it anymore... it is funny that this is a leak by a clown show.....

 

As I have covered your ""MBFC's factual, credibility & bias rating:"" before many times... they are as fake a fact checking site as your posts on here.... please quit posting their trash...

Media Bias Fact Check Literally is a written opinion site by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt

The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest

Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/

Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).
We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?
https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html

Media Bias Fact Check Is a Major SCAM to Silence the Right
https://www.independentsentinel.com/media-bias-fact-checking-scam-silence-right/

Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get.
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com

Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.[19][20][21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.[22]
Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.[23]
https://conservapedia.com/Media_Bias_Fact_Check

Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.
https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/

Overall, such fallacious attacks on outsider-opinion represent an effort to strangle social discourse from the top down. In this writer’s opinion, sites like Media Bias Fact Check constitute a desperate retaliatory measure in the wake of the legacy media’s loss of collective attention, and seek to reinforce narrative control in the hands of organizations like the Atlantic Council while smearing reliable sources of scientific journalism like WikiLeaks.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine/

If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-just-dishonest

 

I wouldn't have posted but for the high rating on MBFC.

Circular argument, all of your sites are sites poorly rated by MBFC.

Show me reportage by WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, or even the National Review, all are center right and highly rated by MBFC, and on the left The Wonkette, Occupy Democrats, HuffPo (about on par with CNN) lefty sites, are poorly rated. I have sourced the above center right sources a number of times. The only time I will source a site with a 'mixed' rating on the factual scale, is on a case by case basis, and the story has been run in numerous places, which normally means that there were at least 3 confirmed sources (most sources, when repeating a story that is originated in another news source, they will require 3 or more confirmations on the story before rerunning the story).

The have longs lists of good and bad ratings on both sides of the left to right spectrum, a fact which you failed to check, which only reveals YOUR bias.

The left to right bias rating could be argued to be somewhat subjective, noting that this rating, 'bias' has to do with which audience they cater to, a source could select stories of interest to the right or left, and that is what 'bias' means, but the caliber of the reportage is what is important, and the factual rating is based on pass/fail percentage on fact checks. If the factual rating is below mixed I won't use them as a source/link no matter right or left).

The only time where the left to right bias rating affects the factual rating is where the bias rating is extreme to the right or extreme to the left, then the factual rating is usually below 'mixed'.

You could argue areas where they might get it wrong, but, on the whole, they do a fair job and some kind of rating site is needed. They are pretty good on the really terrible sites, those are the ones I look out for, such as Gatewaypundit, .

 

thats what i have been thinking about those orders the dnc and fbi were giving to twitter. if someone told twitter to bury the laptop it should not take 5 tranches of endless blather to show one from someone in authority.

 

Any group that goes to extraordinary lengths to invent Russia Collusion has zero credibility.

Democrats lie. I don’t believe a word of this article or this OP.

 

@Patricio Da Silva

Methinks the Popscott protests too much.

 

Let's get something straight, which are the facts.

These are the texts provided by Mark Meadows to the committee. No one is making up 2000 text messages. They involved many mundane texts in the mix, and details of chronological occurrences from the various individuals texting Meadows, with his replies, which would all have to line up, this idea that this would be forged is nonsense. If that were true, it would be too easy to contest not just by Meadows but by, Representative Norman, and all the 34 or so different congresspersons, senators, staff, Ginni Thomas, Ivanka, etc, who the text messages are from, and thus it would be too easy to contest and disprove. Also, these texts will be part of the evidence provided in the report to congress by the committee, so this idea that it is a 'lie' is beyond absurd. If the committee made this up it would be too easy for them to be busted, and the very idea that these texts are made up is utterly ridiculous.

Meadows. and everyone else have NOT contested them. There's your answer.

Democrats lie? You mean like the one told by Trump, practically a year before the first ballot was cast, that 'The only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election? Lies like that?

As for the 'Russian Collusion', the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller was a Republican appointed by Acting AG Rosenstein, who was a Republican appointed by Donald Trump so cut the crap with this big lie that it was 'all democrats'.

 

I imagine this kind of "see no evil" approach will not be uncommon among The Following regarding this story. The degree to which avoidance of facts is necessary depends on how damaging to MAGA the story is...........and this one is a doozy. Even I, of all people, underestimated how the ranks of the Crazy had infiltrated the House Repub caucus. I knew about the more high profile ones like Gosar, Gaetz, Jordan, MTG, but I'd never heard of some of these clowns.

A special shout out to my good friend drluggit. Someone who likes to take pot shots at TPM because I use it as a source fairly regularly. I find they do very credible reporting. This story is quite a scoop for them since they don't typically get them. Something my friend likely found especially irritating.

 

Gym Jordan, soon to be Chairman of The House Judiciary, is an insurrectionist per his texts. WTF is wrong with the Trump Party, they are fully inverted off the proverbial cliff. Jordan the Clown Show in 2023.......

 

Reading the texts themselves, i am having trouble finding anything legal. Desperate attempts to find wrong doing, but nothing which indicated illegality.

 

I like it!

 

@Patricio Da Silva

 

If you are going to quote the Bible in your sig, you should heed the part in the Bible which says not to bear false witness, which means, according to your God, when you accuse, get your facts straight.

And the facts are that many of the Major players who were leaders in the initiation of and continued FBI investigation, namely James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein (appointed by Trump), Robert Mueller, are ALL REPUBICANS.

ANd NOTHING 'was invented'. The Trump campaign had some 140 contacts with Russians, and the FBI investigation, though there were problems associated with the FISA warrants, the IG found that the problems were inherent in many FBI fisa warrants, not just against Trump, and by virtue of this fact, the IG found "NO BIAS' in the investigation and that it was 'sufficiently predicated' (there was probable cause for the investigation). As the result of the investigation, 8 Trump staff/entourage were indicted and convicted Trump's circle were rife with criminals, and as it is turning out, the biggest criminal of them all is no doubt Donald Trump who was caught red handed paying $130k hush money to a porn star he fornicated with just after his newly wed wife gave birth and whose long time devoted lawyer, Michael Cohen, he threw under the bus and Cohen served 3 years in prison, of which the time was partially attributed to the felony campaign violation by which Cohen, under the direction of Donald Trump, and thus Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator).

But, apparently, you don't give a damn about the 'facts'.

 

This will get Trump supporters all bunched up!

 

It is not illegal for Trump to have people working for him which were convicted. Neither is it illegal to pay hush money to a porn star.

 

Thank you!

 

Your fact checking site Media Bias is a fake fact checking site... it is a opinion site written by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt... see post #5.... please stop posting the garbage they spew on here.... it is not true and misinformation...

 

Please see post #15, it is "spot-on"!

 

it was illegal for john gotti to have people working for him who were convicted. that is the business model of a "racketeering influenced corrupt organization."

it is illegal to pay campaign funds to a porn star (or any other woman, ask john edwards)

 

You mean this "someone in authority"

according to a sworn declaration by Twitter’s former head of site integrity, Yoel Roth.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/whats-missing-from-the-twitter-files-the-truth-about-the-fbi/
https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/05/fbi-twitter-hunter-biden-yoel-roth/
https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/fbi-warned-twitter-of-hunter-biden-hack-before-censoring-the-post/
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/fbi...den-hack-and-leak-operation-censoring-ny-post

Twitter had been warned throughout 2020 by federal law enforcement agencies to be on
the alert for expected “hack-and-leak operations” undertaken by malign state actors, in which
those state actors might hack electronic communications of individuals associated with political campaigns and seek to disseminate the leaked materials over Twitter and other social media platforms. Reports from the law enforcement agencies even suggested there were rumors that such a hack-and-leak operation would be related to Hunter Biden.
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7827/7827_08.pdf

 

No, it's true, being a bloviating, lying, despicable human being is not illegal. While I won't mind chit chatting with such a person in some seedy bar, somewhere, I sure as hell don't want that person to be my president.

Moreover, if you hire 8 indicated criminals, one might wonder if you, yourself, are a criminal. As it is turning out, Trump is a criminal as will be indicated in the
Committees findings, which are highly documented.

It is a felony campaign violation to pay hush money to a porn star if you are a candidate for president and you do not report the payment in financial disclosure forms required of campaign finance law and the 'in kind donation' exceeds campaign limits, which, I believe is $2700. Under oath, Cohen admitted that the payments were intended to protect Trump's election chances, they are deemed to be in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign as they weren't reported and they exceeded in kind campaign donation limits. . This fact is revealed in the Cohen indictment.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...g-why-hush-money-illegal-donation/2287647002/

 

Methinks PDS tries to post Media Bias fake fact checking as the word of God... strictly an opinion site written by a loser...