On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:46:25 -0500, John wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:55:31 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 08:58:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 20:13:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Donald Trump asked key advisers about appointing a controversial lawyer
formerly associated with his campaign as a special counsel charged with
overseeing an investigation of alleged — and nonexistent — voter fraud,
according to a report from the New York Times.

That lawyer, Sidney Powell, has gained notoriety in recent weeks for
spreading conspiracy theories about voting machines being rigged for
President-elect Joe Biden, for filing legal documents riddled with basic
errors, and for being suddenly removed from the Trump campaign legal
team. By appointing Powell a special counsel, Trump would be elevating
her false claims, giving already disproven attacks on the presidential
election a misleading patina of legitimacy.

According to Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kanno-Youngs,
Trump held a meeting at the White House on Friday to weigh whether to
name Powell as a special counsel to investigate his repeatedly debunked
claims of mass voter fraud in last month’s presidential election.

The meeting was reportedly full of current and former Trump allies,
including the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Powell,
national security adviser Robert O’Brien, and O’Brien’s predecessor,
former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

(Powell has been deeply involved, along with Rudee Rudee Rudee, in many
of the cases the Trump Team has lost in attempting to bull**** the
election loss into a win. She has a lot of really bizarre beliefs.)

"The meeting was reportedly..."

Well, that makes it factual enough for you and Wayne, eh?

===

John, you're welcome to believe what you want even if it was first
reported by some half baked conspiracy theorist. Of course I'm sure
you realize that no one in Trump's inner circle is willing to go on
record and be quoted by name unless they already have another job
lined up.

If she'd said, "According to a White House official who will remain unnamed..."
I might give the story a bit more credibility. Please don't try to tell me
that's not possible either. The word 'reportedly' gets thrown around way too
much, especially by the NYT, WAPO, LAT, CNN, et al.

But, don't let me cause you to doubt anything you read or hear from them.

===

How's this: "According to several attendees at Trump's staff meeting
who will remain unnamed..."

It has been verified by several people who were there.

But like I said, you are free to believe what you want.