Trick or Tweet

Yesterday, I read a tweet from the MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell that I thought was so hilariously lunatic that I posted what I believed was a pretty benign quip.

"Donald Trump will be back in office in August!"
-- MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell on Steve Bannon's podcast

I am SO looking forward to Mike Lindell's testimony under oath in Dominion's $1.3 billion lawsuit against him.

— Robert Elisberg (@relisberg) March 29, 2021

But manl  At the moment, it has gotten around 2,500 "Likes.:

And far too many wing nuts insisting that, oh, no, it's Dominion who should be terrified of the discovery process.  Because there's so much proof against them.  Like in Michigan where they found voter fraud.  And why would Mike Lindell countersue twice if he didn't have the evidence?  And the Trump lawyers had their cases dismissed by they didn't have standing.  And Democrats couldn't get anything on Trump, so they're going after him this way.  And yabba yabba yabba yabba on and on and on yabba yabba endlessly.  (One person added to the yabba quotient by insisting Sidney Power has never backtracked and strongly defends the charges she made, 

I didn't answer everyone -- there were far, FAR too many.  And responding to them all would be like playing megalomaniacal version of Whack-a-Mole.  But a few stood out, and I did reply.  Generally, I only replied once because then you get sucked down the rabbit hole into oblivion.  So, I'd answer, explain too that I didn't debate delusion, and offered a fond goodbye. And then muted them.

The general thrust of my answers were:

The State of Michigan did an official audit -- by hand -- in the county in question and determined it was not a machine error at all, but a human error by a clerk...and the vote total was 100% correct.  Read the news.

The Trump Team lost 60 cases, and in those that were dismissed it was because what they were offering as "evidence" didn't have merit -- not because they didn't have standing.  Courts have standards that must be met in order to offer evidence to be considered, or else lawyers can be sanctioned.  Read the news.

Sidney Powell's lawyer filed a brief in court about her statements making those charges that "reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact."  Read the news.

The Mueller Report said that there was collusion -- but it couldn't be proven by a legal standard because there also was obstruction which blocked investigators from the evidence.  Read the news.

And a majority of the U.S. Senate (including Republicans) voted to convict Trump, though two-thirds is required.  Read the news.

And no charges were ever filed against Trump when in office because the Justice Department has a guideline that says you can't charge a sitting President with a crime.  Read the news.

But mainly, as for Mike Lindell, the very person who started this all --.the reason he countersued is because he is nuts.  For starters, just look at the statement that was the whole point of my original tweet:  that Trump would be back in office by August!!!

Okay, so, honestly, how in the world is that supposed to happen??  How?!!!  Seriously, how does Mike Lindell actually believe Trump will be president again in only four months???  For starters, any lawsuit that challenges the election results won't likely even be heard by August.  And that doesn't taken into consideration that all 50 states have certified the results.  But lets create a monumental fantasy world where a lawsuit is actually filed (none has been yet, of course.)  And after motions to dismiss and debate about that, the trial is granted to go forward by the court.  And discovery, finding jurors, and hearing witness all take place in just days.  And after a very fast deliberation, that the verdict goes goes in Trump's favor.  All within just four months.

Do these people not think there would be...oh, an appeal?  And that after that long process, whatever the verdict is, it would not get appealed to the Supreme Court?  But that if it actually did, the Justices would call an immediate session and decide on whether or not to hear the case?  And would then agree to hear it immediately.  And that the lawyers would have to start without time to prepare?  And it would only take days?  And the Justices would deliberate for a few hours -- and decide in favor of Trump, who would be sworn in the next day??!  All so that he could be back as president by August?

Seriously?  Or do they just think a district court will make a quick, emergency rule on behalf of Trump, and everyone would agree that, okay, that settles that, and the next day Trump would be president?

As I said, I think it's fair to refer to Mike Lindell as nuts because we're only using his own words 

And no, you don't get to use the Trump Gambit of "Oh, no, he didn't actually mean that, you're taking his words literally, and he doesn't mean they're actually literal.  It's just sort of the general idea.  'By August' just means some other vague, distant time."  Like, perhaps November, 2024.

And yes, I actually did reply to a lot of people with a combination of these responses.  Not most, thankfully, but far too many.  And the answer to "Why in God's name did you did that?" is basically..."I don't know.  Probably because it was a slow day.  They were so stupid that it was easy.  And it probably annoyed them.  But I don't know.  We're still in a pandemic, and I'm still sort of sheltering at home, what else would I do to fill up my time?"

And I did, thankfully, eventually give up reading them.  Though had to fight responding when my eye did spot a loony reply scroll by.  (That's the downside of getting thousands of Likes or replies -- you still have to look to see if someone is writing to you for a completely separate reason... And since you do give up looking at everyone, any of these separate tweets stand a good chance of being missed.)

I don't particularly regret answering the people I did.  Not a great choice, but okay, it was sort of fun, if too numbing.  And it's who I am.  But what I come closer to regretting is posting that first quip.

Closer to regretting -- but not enough regret to not do it again.  Besides, it mostly got a tidal wave of positive comments, which were a treat to read.

And in truth, I really do look forward to Mike Lindell's testimony under cross-examination.  As someone responded in one of those many positive replies, they should put it on pay-per-view.  It would take in a bundle.