...worse than that...

...the Russians and the republicans are opposing having a nationwide paper ballot trail to be able to confirm the vote of the American people in 2020...

...why?...because they can't steal another election if we can prove it was stolen...

...the slimy republicans need Russian hacking in order to win...as of now, I would seriously question how legitimate the 2020 election results will be without a paper trail...

...federal law enforcement officials are 'scum' according to trump...

...fair election?...

From what I have seen. Vile cowards. Protecting their jobs over the health of our nation. Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall at their breakfast tables at home? Hearing them (some, anyway) express their personal disgust of the man while saying nothing where their constituents might notice.

Often they do it in venues that you might not frequent.

More likely you've heard them and dismissed them or simply glossed over them as not strong enough or as meaningless, with the consequence that your brain didn't consider the information worth remembering. Remember, we forget almost everything we hear each day as far as active recall goes, and we forget the vast majority of what we hear as far as passive recall goes, and chuck the rest in short-term memory. Then, over the course of the next week, we filter out even more information as we purge short-term memory and selectively (and mostly unconsciously) shift things to long-term memory.


There were a lot of (R) who condemned Trump for a number of things before the report. Some additional (R) condemned him after the report was issued. Could I remember their names? No, that's not useful information. In some cases I just remember that they were peripherally involved in (R) politics--one "highly place political operative" worked for a few weeks on the Trump transition team in late 2016, for instance. In other cases, they're in Congress or in state governments or are pundits/writers. In some cases they've become disaffected for other reasons, and didn't speak out until they had something that looked like other than a personal beef for the basis. In some cases, the media had to dig deep to find some obscure (R) to add to the list or locate one that didn't say, "What he did was wrong, but I support him still for other reasons" or even "allowed to serve out his term until the voters can speak" but instead was willing to say, "What he did was wrong, and he should be impeached." In other cases, the (R) was willing to speak "in-house" but not tell tales out of school--where he uttered the condemnation mattered, because of the use that would be made of his words either by his peer group or by a political adversary.

Sometimes media-source bias limits the information we hear from the start.

but who among the elected leadership (at any level) have condemned him?

I think the "quitters" are the tip of the iceberg. Many others will just refuse to vote for Chump, but they'll be quiet about it though.