The Ukraine Crisis

[BDKJMU]

You shockingly didn't read the election report that was put out by the investigating lawyers, did you? The report proves the election in multiple states should not have been certified. What has happened in the meantime? All the states in question have fought through lawyers to prevent the LEGAL inspection of ballots and images. It's been three plus years and the legal battles are still ongoing. How is it the people have the law on their side, but cannot perform an inspection?

Storming the Capitol. Look out fainting couch. If one was so stupid to enter the Capitol, be my guest at jail time, but to imply they were going to "storm" the chambers and crown Trump forever Prez is blue anon fantasy.

How many times has Trump "been in trouble" with the establishment? Too many times to count, but yet you somehow believe it's all real this time. PT Barnum sure nailed it!

[SeattleGriz]

You shockingly didn't read the election report that was put out by the investigating lawyers, did you? The report proves the election in multiple states should not have been certified. What has happened in the meantime? All the states in question have fought through lawyers to prevent the LEGAL inspection of ballots and images. It's been three plus years and the legal battles are still ongoing. How is it the people have the law on their side, but cannot perform an inspection?

Storming the Capitol. Look out fainting couch. If one was so stupid to enter the Capitol, be my guest at jail time, but to imply they were going to "storm" the chambers and crown Trump forever Prez is blue anon fantasy.

How many times has Trump "been in trouble" with the establishment? Too many times to count, but yet you somehow believe it's all real this time. PT Barnum sure nailed it!

You didn't read the report either, did you?

[UNI88]

Put up or shut up - let's see some verifiable proof that the 2020 election was stolen. Not some baseless MAQA allegations but real proof that that there was enough Democratic fraud to outweigh Republican fraud and cost trump the election.

A most peaceful crowd made up of "tourists" doesn't storm a bastion of American democracy causing elected officials who were in the process of certifying election results to flee over concerns about their safety.

If I search your posts will I find ones where you call the lawsuits lawfare or a witch hunt? Regardless, there are plenty of MAQA yahoos who believe trump is an innocent victim of lawfare. They're afraid that moderate/independent voters in swing states will agree with me and it will cost trump the election.

trump is terrified of these lawsuits and he's trying to delay them hoping he can get elected POTUS and use his power and influence to grind justice into the ground and avoid responsibility for his words and actions.

You shockingly didn't read the election report that was put out by the investigating lawyers, did you? The report proves the election in multiple states should not have been certified. What has happened in the meantime? All the states in question have fought through lawyers to prevent the LEGAL inspection of ballots and images. It's been three plus years and the legal battles are still ongoing. How is it the people have the law on their side, but cannot perform an inspection?

Storming the Capitol. Look out fainting couch. If one was so stupid to enter the Capitol, be my guest at jail time, but to imply they were going to "storm" the chambers and crown Trump forever Prez is blue anon fantasy.

How many times has Trump "been in trouble" with the establishment? Too many times to count, but yet you somehow believe it's all real this time. PT Barnum sure nailed it!

I asked for "verifiable proof that the 2020 election was stolen. Not some baseless MAQA allegations but real proof that that there was enough Democratic fraud to outweigh Republican fraud and cost trump the election" and you provide words without links to "verifiable sources". You're full of sh!t and want me to believe your tinfoil hat MAQA conspiracies without real proof because you do. It's not happening for me and anyone who hasn't drank the trump is my god and idol koolaid.

The fact that the protestors were gullible fools who weren't going to successfully overthrow the republic doesn't mean what they did was harmless and should be excused.

PT Barnum was right ...

[SeattleGriz]

You shockingly didn't read the election report that was put out by the investigating lawyers, did you? The report proves the election in multiple states should not have been certified. What has happened in the meantime? All the states in question have fought through lawyers to prevent the LEGAL inspection of ballots and images. It's been three plus years and the legal battles are still ongoing. How is it the people have the law on their side, but cannot perform an inspection?

Storming the Capitol. Look out fainting couch. If one was so stupid to enter the Capitol, be my guest at jail time, but to imply they were going to "storm" the chambers and crown Trump forever Prez is blue anon fantasy.

How many times has Trump "been in trouble" with the establishment? Too many times to count, but yet you somehow believe it's all real this time. PT Barnum sure nailed it!

I asked for "verifiable proof that the 2020 election was stolen. Not some baseless MAQA allegations but real proof that that there was enough Democratic fraud to outweigh Republican fraud and cost trump the election" and you provide words without links to "verifiable sources". You're full of sh!t and want me to believe your tinfoil hat MAQA conspiracies without real proof because you do. It's not happening for me and anyone who hasn't drank the trump is my god and idol koolaid.

The fact that the protestors were gullible fools who weren't going to successfully overthrow the republic doesn't mean what they did was harmless and should be excused.

PT Barnum was right ...

The report was done by election lawyers and forensic investigators. What they have done is taken the states actual results and shown the states they could not have lawfully certified their elections. The ballots in question far surpass the margin of victory. Biden magically came from way behind to only beat Trump by 42,000 votes across three states.

A perfect example is the case I previously referenced in Georgia. Over 18,000 ballots in question and the court has now delayed their trial by 440 days, after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled they had standing. That isn't even all the discrepancies that need to be answered. Why the delay? Can you answer that for me?

In regards to "proof", you consistently use the "Trump is indicted" line, but yet he hasn't even gone to trial. How does that square? How is Trump guilty, but the election is settled? Neither has been fully adjudicated.

[UNI88]

I asked for "verifiable proof that the 2020 election was stolen. Not some baseless MAQA allegations but real proof that that there was enough Democratic fraud to outweigh Republican fraud and cost trump the election" and you provide words without links to "verifiable sources". You're full of sh!t and want me to believe your tinfoil hat MAQA conspiracies without real proof because you do. It's not happening for me and anyone who hasn't drank the trump is my god and idol koolaid.

The fact that the protestors were gullible fools who weren't going to successfully overthrow the republic doesn't mean what they did was harmless and should be excused.

PT Barnum was right ...

The report was done by election lawyers and forensic investigators. What they have done is taken the states actual results and shown the states they could not have lawfully certified their elections. The ballots in question far surpass the margin of victory. Biden magically came from way behind to only beat Trump by 42,000 votes across three states.

A perfect example is the case I previously referenced in Georgia. Over 18,000 ballots in question and the court has now delayed their trial by 440 days, after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled they had standing. That isn't even all the discrepancies that need to be answered. Why the delay? Can you answer that for me?

In regards to "proof", you consistently use the "Trump is indicted" line, but yet he hasn't even gone to trial. How does that square? How is Trump guilty, but the election is settled? Neither has been fully adjudicated.

Provide a link to this report.

Do we know what trump said to Raffensperger on January 2? Do we know what he said to the rioters on January 6? Do we know that he called other state officials asking them to find votes and/or not certify results? Do we know that he arranged for slates of fake electors? If he's innocent, why is he frantically attempting to delay all of the trials until after the election? There's enough to form a reasoned and rational opinion.

[SeattleGriz]

The report was done by election lawyers and forensic investigators. What they have done is taken the states actual results and shown the states they could not have lawfully certified their elections. The ballots in question far surpass the margin of victory. Biden magically came from way behind to only beat Trump by 42,000 votes across three states.

A perfect example is the case I previously referenced in Georgia. Over 18,000 ballots in question and the court has now delayed their trial by 440 days, after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled they had standing. That isn't even all the discrepancies that need to be answered. Why the delay? Can you answer that for me?

In regards to "proof", you consistently use the "Trump is indicted" line, but yet he hasn't even gone to trial. How does that square? How is Trump guilty, but the election is settled? Neither has been fully adjudicated.

Provide a link to this report.

Do we know what trump said to Raffensperger on January 2? Do we know what he said to the rioters on January 6? Do we know that he called other state officials asking them to find votes and/or not certify results? Do we know that he arranged for slates of fake electors? If he's innocent, why is he frantically attempting to delay all of the trials until after the election? There's enough to form a reasoned and rational opinion.

So is delaying the inspection of ballots for over 440 days.

The link to the report is in the tweet.

[UNI88]

Provide a link to this report.

Do we know what trump said to Raffensperger on January 2? Do we know what he said to the rioters on January 6? Do we know that he called other state officials asking them to find votes and/or not certify results? Do we know that he arranged for slates of fake electors? If he's innocent, why is he frantically attempting to delay all of the trials until after the election? There's enough to form a reasoned and rational opinion.

So is delaying the inspection of ballots for over 440 days.

The link to the report is in the tweet.

It's an unsigned report by "nameless experts" so it must be true.

It took me 2 minutes to find something that reputed it and I'm sure there's more. I'm also sure you'll dismiss them due to your own confirmation bias.

Trump’s new ‘evidence’ that Biden lost in 2020 is ridiculously wrong (and dusty). We reviewed it.

"Nowhere is there a smoking gun, conclusive evidence that there was fraud or illegal ballots cast for Joe Biden," said Justin Grimmer, a Stanford University political science professor who researches elections. "Instead, the report relies upon innuendo, implication and poor data analysis to reach a conclusion about fraudulent votes being cast when the evidence supposedly supporting that conclusion simply cannot justify that conclusion."

PolitiFact has documented some examples of voter fraud in 2020, such as people casting votes on behalf of dead relatives. But these instances were not enough to change the race’s outcome, and some crimes were committed by Republicans. Examples cited in the report do not prove that fraudulent ballots were cast for Biden.

If that report were a serious study, they would have looked at all of the 2020 swing states, including North Carolina. Why did they only focus on states that trump lost? Maybe because they'd already reached a conclusion and went looking for "proof" to justify it rather than looking at all the data scientifically and letting it speak for itself.

[SeattleGriz]

So is delaying the inspection of ballots for over 440 days.

The link to the report is in the tweet.

It's an unsigned report by "nameless experts" so it must be true.

It took me 2 minutes to find something that reputed it and I'm sure there's more. I'm also sure you'll dismiss them due to your own confirmation bias.

Trump’s new ‘evidence’ that Biden lost in 2020 is ridiculously wrong (and dusty). We reviewed it.

"Nowhere is there a smoking gun, conclusive evidence that there was fraud or illegal ballots cast for Joe Biden," said Justin Grimmer, a Stanford University political science professor who researches elections. "Instead, the report relies upon innuendo, implication and poor data analysis to reach a conclusion about fraudulent votes being cast when the evidence supposedly supporting that conclusion simply cannot justify that conclusion."

PolitiFact has documented some examples of voter fraud in 2020, such as people casting votes on behalf of dead relatives. But these instances were not enough to change the race’s outcome, and some crimes were committed by Republicans. Examples cited in the report do not prove that fraudulent ballots were cast for Biden.

If that report were a serious study, they would have looked at all of the 2020 swing states, including North Carolina. Why did they only focus on states that trump lost? Maybe because they'd already reached a conclusion and went looking for "proof" to justify it rather than looking at all the data scientifically and letting it speak for itself.

No. Politifact is not a legitimate source. For one, the person usually writing the article has no expertise in the area. Two, the articles many times refer to off topic points that are non sequiturs and three, they were not the ones who requested the documents and went over them with election experts.

StOnge tried to use Politifact during COVID and you saw what happened to him.

You still haven't answered why the Georgia courts have delayed the hearing for over 440 days when their Supreme Court said they had standing and could request to see ballots and images as provided under state law?

[houndawg]

I asked for "verifiable proof that the 2020 election was stolen. Not some baseless MAQA allegations but real proof that that there was enough Democratic fraud to outweigh Republican fraud and cost trump the election" and you provide words without links to "verifiable sources". You're full of sh!t and want me to believe your tinfoil hat MAQA conspiracies without real proof because you do. It's not happening for me and anyone who hasn't drank the trump is my god and idol koolaid.

The fact that the protestors were gullible fools who weren't going to successfully overthrow the republic doesn't mean what they did was harmless and should be excused.

PT Barnum was right ...

The report was done by election lawyers and forensic investigators. What they have done is taken the states actual results and shown the states they could not have lawfully certified their elections. The ballots in question far surpass the margin of victory. Biden magically came from way behind to only beat Trump by 42,000 votes across three states.

A perfect example is the case I previously referenced in Georgia. Over 18,000 ballots in question and the court has now delayed their trial by 440 days, after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled they had standing. That isn't even all the discrepancies that need to be answered. Why the delay? Can you answer that for me?

In regards to "proof", you consistently use the "Trump is indicted" line, but yet he hasn't even gone to trial. How does that square? How is Trump guilty, but the election is settled? Neither has been fully adjudicated.

What did the judge say when they showed their "evidence" in court?

[UNI88]

It's an unsigned report by "nameless experts" so it must be true.

It took me 2 minutes to find something that reputed it and I'm sure there's more. I'm also sure you'll dismiss them due to your own confirmation bias.

Trump’s new ‘evidence’ that Biden lost in 2020 is ridiculously wrong (and dusty). We reviewed it.

If that report were a serious study, they would have looked at all of the 2020 swing states, including North Carolina. Why did they only focus on states that trump lost? Maybe because they'd already reached a conclusion and went looking for "proof" to justify it rather than looking at all the data scientifically and letting it speak for itself.

No. Politifact is not a legitimate source. For one, the person usually writing the article has no expertise in the area. Two, the articles many times refer to off topic points that are non sequiturs and three, they were not the ones who requested the documents and went over them with election experts.

StOnge tried to use Politifact during COVID and you saw what happened to him.

You still haven't answered why the Georgia courts have delayed the hearing for over 440 days when their Supreme Court said they had standing and could request to see ballots and images as provided under state law?

An attack on the validity of a source rather than the information it contained by a guy who complains about ad hominem attacks and who just posted a link to an unsigned "report". The irony is rich indeed.

As for the Georgia case. The Supreme Court returned the case to the Appeals Court which reviewed it based on the Supreme Court's ruling and vacated the dismissal of the claims of 4 of the 9 appellants and remanded the case back to the trial courtfor further consideration on May 11, 2023 so it's been approximately 275 days.

Why didn't the unsigned authors of your "report" look at North Carolina?

There are other articles out there quoting real experts and shooting holes through your unsigned "report". It's a piece of political propaganda, not serious research.

[kalm]

Probably. It’s why they’re so popular right now.

[UNI88]

They could be right.

donald trump could have been fighting a satanic pedophile ring.

Jewish space lasers could have started the California wildfires.

The NFL could have conspired to place the Kansas City Chiefs in the Super Bowl so that Taylor Swift could endorse joe biden at halftime. The Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills and Baltimore Ravens could have put aside their professional dreams and competitive drive. The referees could have put aside their professional pride. All of them and the NFL staff could have kept it quiet.

[SeattleGriz]

The report was done by election lawyers and forensic investigators. What they have done is taken the states actual results and shown the states they could not have lawfully certified their elections. The ballots in question far surpass the margin of victory. Biden magically came from way behind to only beat Trump by 42,000 votes across three states.

A perfect example is the case I previously referenced in Georgia. Over 18,000 ballots in question and the court has now delayed their trial by 440 days, after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled they had standing. That isn't even all the discrepancies that need to be answered. Why the delay? Can you answer that for me?

In regards to "proof", you consistently use the "Trump is indicted" line, but yet he hasn't even gone to trial. How does that square? How is Trump guilty, but the election is settled? Neither has been fully adjudicated.

What did the judge say when they showed their "evidence" in court?

The judge initially said they didn't have standing so I don't think they even got to present. It took the Supreme Court overturning that ruling and another saying they DID have standing. Now the lower court has stalled for over 440 days, so the evidence has been sitting, waiting for justice.

[SeattleGriz]

No. Politifact is not a legitimate source. For one, the person usually writing the article has no expertise in the area. Two, the articles many times refer to off topic points that are non sequiturs and three, they were not the ones who requested the documents and went over them with election experts.

StOnge tried to use Politifact during COVID and you saw what happened to him.

You still haven't answered why the Georgia courts have delayed the hearing for over 440 days when their Supreme Court said they had standing and could request to see ballots and images as provided under state law?

An attack on the validity of a source rather than the information it contained by a guy who complains about ad hominem attacks and who just posted a link to an unsigned "report". The irony is rich indeed.

As for the Georgia case. The Supreme Court returned the case to the Appeals Court which reviewed it based on the Supreme Court's ruling and vacated the dismissal of the claims of 4 of the 9 appellants and remanded the case back to the trial courtfor further consideration on May 11, 2023 so it's been approximately 275 days.

Why didn't the unsigned authors of your "report" look at North Carolina?

There are other articles out there quoting real experts and shooting holes through your unsigned "report". It's a piece of political propaganda, not serious research.

Oh I agree, but in the case of Politifact, they have been proven wrong far too many times, and like I said, the election lawyers subpoenaed documents Politifact never got to examine, so they are making a superficial argument, not a truly forensic one StUni.

[UNI88]

What did the judge say when they showed their "evidence" in court?

The judge initially said they didn't have standing so I don't think they even got to present. It took the Supreme Court overturning that ruling and another saying they DID have standing. Now the lower court has stalled for over 440 days, so the evidence has been sitting, waiting for justice.

As for the Georgia case. The Supreme Court returned the case to the Appeals Court which reviewed it based on the Supreme Court's ruling and vacated the dismissal of the claims of 4 of the 9 appellants and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration on May 11, 2023 so it's been approximately 275 days.

[SeattleGriz]

The judge initially said they didn't have standing so I don't think they even got to present. It took the Supreme Court overturning that ruling and another saying they DID have standing. Now the lower court has stalled for over 440 days, so the evidence has been sitting, waiting for justice.

As for the Georgia case. The Supreme Court returned the case to the Appeals Court which reviewed it based on the Supreme Court's ruling and vacated the dismissal of the claims of 4 of the 9 appellants and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration on May 11, 2023 so it's been approximately 275 days.

Link. I don't trust your sources.

[UNI88]

An attack on the validity of a source rather than the information it contained by a guy who complains about ad hominem attacks and who just posted a link to an unsigned "report". The irony is rich indeed.

As for the Georgia case. The Supreme Court returned the case to the Appeals Court which reviewed it based on the Supreme Court's ruling and vacated the dismissal of the claims of 4 of the 9 appellants and remanded the case back to the trial courtfor further consideration on May 11, 2023 so it's been approximately 275 days.

Why didn't the unsigned authors of your "report" look at North Carolina?

There are other articles out there quoting real experts and shooting holes through your unsigned "report". It's a piece of political propaganda, not serious research.

Oh I agree, but in the case of Politifact, they have been proven wrong far too many times, and like I said, the election lawyers subpoenaed documents Politifact never got to examine, so they are making a superficial argument, not a truly forensic one StUni.

You're dismissing an article based on who published it in favor of a report that the authors were afraid or ashamed to sign. There is plenty of content refuting trump's political propaganda self identifying as a "report" including:

"Nowhere is there a smoking gun, conclusive evidence that there was fraud or illegal ballots cast for Joe Biden," said Justin Grimmer, a Stanford University political science professor who researches elections. "Instead, the report relies upon innuendo, implication and poor data analysis to reach a conclusion about fraudulent votes being cast when the evidence supposedly supporting that conclusion simply cannot justify that conclusion."

I'll take Justin Ryan Grimmer's (Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Public Policy and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution) word over some unknown authors. So refute the content of the Politifact article or stop spreading the fake news that the election was stolen.

You also continue to evade my question on why North Carolina wasn't included. The report is literally titled "Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States" but they left off a swing state. Is it a coincidence that it's the one that trump won? Do you really think that fraud only favored biden and only occurred in states that trump lost? A serious social science study would look at all battleground states regardless of outcome and not just states or counties (Maricopa) that trump lost.

[SeattleGriz]

Oh I agree, but in the case of Politifact, they have been proven wrong far too many times, and like I said, the election lawyers subpoenaed documents Politifact never got to examine, so they are making a superficial argument, not a truly forensic one StUni.

You're dismissing an article based on who published it in favor of a report that the authors were afraid or ashamed to sign. There is plenty of content refuting trump's political propaganda self identifying as a "report" including:

"Nowhere is there a smoking gun, conclusive evidence that there was fraud or illegal ballots cast for Joe Biden," said Justin Grimmer, a Stanford University political science professor who researches elections. "Instead, the report relies upon innuendo, implication and poor data analysis to reach a conclusion about fraudulent votes being cast when the evidence supposedly supporting that conclusion simply cannot justify that conclusion."

I'll take Justin Ryan Grimmer's (Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Public Policy and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution) word over some unknown authors. So refute the content of the Politifact article or stop spreading the fake news that the election was stolen.

You also continue to evade my question on why North Carolina wasn't included. The report is literally titled "Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States" but they left off a swing state. Is it a coincidence that it's the one that trump won? Do you really think that fraud only favored biden and only occurred in states that trump lost? A serious social science study would look at all battleground states regardless of outcome and not just states or counties (Maricopa) that trump lost.

Really. Ol Justin simply says there is no smoking gun, but then provides nothing to back up this claim? You call that believable? You really are becoming the new StOnge on this board. I'm now of the full belief StOnge schooled you on economics.

[UNI88]

You're dismissing an article based on who published it in favor of a report that the authors were afraid or ashamed to sign. There is plenty of content refuting trump's political propaganda self identifying as a "report" including:

I'll take Justin Ryan Grimmer's (Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Public Policy and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution) word over some unknown authors. So refute the content of the Politifact article or stop spreading the fake news that the election was stolen.

You also continue to evade my question on why North Carolina wasn't included. The report is literally titled "Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States" but they left off a swing state. Is it a coincidence that it's the one that trump won? Do you really think that fraud only favored biden and only occurred in states that trump lost? A serious social science study would look at all battleground states regardless of outcome and not just states or counties (Maricopa) that trump lost.

Really. Ol Justin simply says there is no smoking gun, but then provides nothing to back up this claim? You call that believable? You really are becoming the new StOnge on this board. I'm now of the full belief StOnge schooled you on economics.

Still dodging the questions of why North Carolina wasn't included and why the report was unsigned.

Justin didn't have to back up his claim because the "report" had no smoking gun, just a bunch of rumors and unproven or refuted allegations. The "science" of the "report" was more flawed than the science you criticize on the COVID thread.

Keep drinking the MAQA kool-aid and blindly believing whatever you read/hear in their echo chambers rather than using critical thinking to ferret out some semblance of the truth that trump and both parties are full of shit.

[BDKJMU]

[houndawg]

Probably. It’s why they’re so popular right now.

Weird Little Creeps.....thats actually a pretty good overall descriptor of the incel base

[SeattleGriz]

Really. Ol Justin simply says there is no smoking gun, but then provides nothing to back up this claim? You call that believable? You really are becoming the new StOnge on this board. I'm now of the full belief StOnge schooled you on economics.

Still dodging the questions of why North Carolina wasn't included and why the report was unsigned.

Justin didn't have to back up his claim because the "report" had no smoking gun, just a bunch of rumors and unproven or refuted allegations. The "science" of the "report" was more flawed than the science you criticize on the COVID thread.

Keep drinking the MAQA kool-aid and blindly believing whatever you read/hear in their echo chambers rather than using critical thinking to ferret out some semblance of the truth that trump and both parties are full of shit.

Didn't you already tell us. Trump won? I'd agree with that. Why dump money into an investigative report that doesn't help your cause.

Let's see the proof on the refuted allegations. You could probably email your bro Justine and ask for his homework.

[UNI88]

Still dodging the questions of why North Carolina wasn't included and why the report was unsigned.

Justin didn't have to back up his claim because the "report" had no smoking gun, just a bunch of rumors and unproven or refuted allegations. The "science" of the "report" was more flawed than the science you criticize on the COVID thread.

Keep drinking the MAQA kool-aid and blindly believing whatever you read/hear in their echo chambers rather than using critical thinking to ferret out some semblance of the truth that trump and both parties are full of shit.

Didn't you already tell us. Trump won? I'd agree with that. Why dump money into an investigative report that doesn't help your cause.

Let's see the proof on the refuted allegations. You could probably email your bro Justine and ask for his homework.

trump didn't win North Carolina, he stole it. There was fraud out of the wazoo. Late-night ballot dumps, dead people voting, electronic mayhem, cats and dogs living together, total election armageddon.

[houndawg]

...you know its killing him every time he thinks about how th US would be out of NATO by now if only the Biden landslide hadn't happened..


talking the POTUS into unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without a shot fired would have been a political coup....... the likes of which have never been seen before

[kalm]

Putin has Navalny killed. Meanwhile Tucker is feeling saucy, dare I say “radicalized” about how much better Russians have it.