Camp
6581
This is a big deal.
According to the report, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg providing financing that allowed the Center for Tech and Civic Life to offer nearly $9 million in “Zuck Bucks” to Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay counties. In exchange, the “Zuckerberg 5,” as the report called the counties, in effect, operated Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. Those grant funds then paid for illegal drop boxes to be placed in Democratic voting strongholds.
The illegal use of drop boxes represented a second area of concern to the special counsel’s office. The report notes state election code limits the manner in which ballots may be cast, providing that an elector must personally mail or deliver his or her ballot to the municipal clerk, except where the law authorizes an agent to act on the behalf of the voter.
The Zuckerberg 5 also violated the federal and state constitutional guarantee of equal protection, according to the special counsel report. The grant money targeted specific voters for special voting privileges, to the disadvantage of similarly situated voters located in other Wisconsin counties. The report also detailed troubling evidence the Zuckerberg 5 counties allowing private groups working with the granting organization, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, to “unlawfully administer aspects of the election,” including in one county where one organization was unlawfully embedded in local government election administration.
The special counsel’s report also highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) illegal directive to clerks to ignore the state election code governing voting in nursing homes. In several nursing home locations throughout the state, 100 percent of registered voters cast a ballot in the 2020 election—an unheard-of rate that included many ineligible voters.
Most secure election?
2 Likes
Smyrna
6582
…and now Zuckerberg has donated more millions to defend those that took his money and implemented this illegal plan. Wouldn’t it be nice, if the laws of our land actually applied to the elite too?
Now consider how the MSM fed this to the sheople? Here’s Vox’s version;
1 Like
Same with Wisconsin R’s. This is not just R vs D. The idea of decertification is fringe. The report speaks to the fringe but a report is as far as R will take it and have already called one decertification bill “silly”.
Seems I always have to remind you of this.
NickN
6584
Do I need to remind you what “RINO” stands for?
Also once the mid terms occur in November I get the feeling these investigations will only intensify.
If you would like, but I’m not sure that will eliminate the fact that opposition to decertification is not limited to “Dems” as you posted.
Nor was the Arizona audit subpoenas resisted by “Dems”.
Whether RINOS, traitors, or whatever there is significant R resistance to decertification.
NickN
6586
The real resistance of Dems and RINO’s is an attempt from keeping the evidence out of courts.
Thus, first step by the advocates who firmly believe the election was rigged is to somehow get this all to have standing in “any” court. Even if it’s a class action civil suit…
“Blocking”? There are scant few election fraud court cases filed and no mechanism I know for anybody to block anyone from filing more.
The cases brought by the election machine manufacturers are a great vehicle to bring forth evidence and the litigants are saying they never had evidence rather than submitting it.
I would love to see this debate happen in court, with rules and structures that limit bad faith and untruth.
I’d even settle for the evidence presented to the public for us to examine directly.
Instead we just have a steady stream of claims and conclusions published in ideological media and a promise of more to come.
it is long past time to dump the excuses and put some meat on the bones of massive election fraud. Is there evidence of just a “feeling” being had by people whose candidate lost?
2 Likes
95-100% turnout seems completely realistic. Right??
Right??
2 Likes
NickN
6590
Ah yes you will settle for this all to be sorted out in the court of public opinion.
So even if consensus determines much of the evidence is credible then what?
It’'s fine time to recognize this ploy especially of the Dems in keeping evidence out of courts is not going to work over the long haul.
It may take until 2023 when the mid term result affirm many voter’s want to know the whole truth.
Better late than never…
1 Like
You mischaracterized my position. I would settle right now for the evidence to be articulated to the public. Then I can decide if it is being “blocked” or if it just doesn’t exist or if it is insufficient to support the assertion that the election result is incorrect.
So for the hundredth time in this thread I’ll ask… what is the evidence?
Or even what is the specific mechanism of the fraud that you are so confident happened?
Is it the machines monitoring the results in real time and flipping votes?
Was it fraudulent ballots manufactured and inserted into the count?
Was it individuals going to the polls in other peoples names?
Was it done to benefit Biden or Trump? Or other down-ticket races?
We are at a point where the narrative is just “Fraud!, everybody knows it.”, but I can assure you that I don’t know it and nobody has even attempted to articulate what it is they know other than tangential and general messiness in how elections are administered.
The “Dems” don’t determine what can be presented to a court.
Lindell put together an official looking complaint, but did not file it. He is not blocked from doing so. Nor are the many R States AG.
The cases are not being blocked. They are not being filed.
Same with decertification. Bills have been submitted, but the R controlled legislatures are not advancing them.
1 Like
I would like to know the historical turnout. The article compares to nationwide turnout, but that is not a good comparison. I need to know the turnout of this same population in past elections.
It does look like some ineligible people voted, and likely with help of get out the vote operatives. But given the claim of “massive fraud” it is meaningful to know if this was 10, 100, 1000 or 10000.
Did turnout change by 1%, 10% or nothing at all?
It is important to know this because I don’t think we should decertify an election based only on a small number of ineligible nursing home votes.
Adding: 95% turnout in a nursing home is actually believable to me. Even higher. I’d like to see the historical rate of nursing home voting.
Not “historical rate of nursing home voting” but a valid comparison would only be had using “historical rate of nursing home voting for the same nursing homes”.
Then you have to account for how MASSIVELY UNPOPULAR Trump** was outside his cult. Given that he was only at 45.3% Approval at the time of the election.
Also given that Trump** received 46.9% of the popular vote, that tracks VERY closely to his approval rating.
WW
1 Like
I do see that standards/laws were broken here… moving from official election assistants to allowing private assistance. With the effect that votes were generated from ineligible voters.
But once again rather than laying this out factually, the linked article obfuscates the scope of this by headlining a comparison of the participation rate of these places to the general public. Making it look like 30% of the votes are implicated.
This “pursuit of the truth” seems to always play out as parlaying an isolated piece of truth into an larger untruthful claim.
There is vote fraud. Most assuredly there is. Massive and result changing? No credible case for that has been put forward yet.
1 Like
rp5x5
6596
Who’s listening? Who’s judging?
Hey you took me off block!
I have listened to each and every claim put forward and followed the document trail as best I could. I can only judge for myself, and at this time my judgement is three-fold:
-
There is a large collection of fraud theories, but no cogent description of which one(s) happened. (Some theories are incompatible with one another)
-
For the theories put forth, little or no hard evidence that that they have occurred.
-
Significant and frequent propagation of bad faith claims
I am still listening if you would like put forth your own theory of how the fraud was implemented and what supporting material you have for it.
enki
6598
2 Likes
What result are you speaking of?
rp5x5
6600
No, you fell off block.
Since the election any mention of fraud has beaten to death with pure, demonic hatred from NWO pawns and ideologues.
Massive fraud. 100% treasoness coup. Sweeping back the sea of leftists without a Civil war is a challenge, but people are waking up a little, despite the brainwashing.
