There’s no reason to believe election integrity was under any threat except that Trump said there was…because he lost.
1 Like
there was a recount, there has been no independent audit.
and you know nothing about what i will accept, so stop trying to speak for me, you’re not qualified.
and looking is a problem… why exactly?
Actually this story proves the value of the audit since it got officials to admit that voting machines can be modified to give erroneous results in ways that are difficult to detect.
What could possibly go wrong with this?
Yet when law enforcement looks into the claims they find nothing.
Why is that?
Several states have been doing that for a while.
No fraud.
Deep state…
Why aren’t all election results subject to an audit?
Yeah… that guy… he is someone to listen to.
2 Likes
You’re not inscrutable. The fact you think this “audit” has any validity whatsoever speaks volumes about what you’ll accept and what you will not.
And what happened in Arizona…twice…before this partisan inquisition were indeed audits. Not forensic audits…but forensic audits only need happen if there’s evidence from recount audits that there should be forensic audits.
And this isn’t a forensic audit…there are very clear ground rules for how a forensic audit should be carried out. CyberNinjas has not followed a single ground rule.
The fact that you either don’t know this or are deliberately ignoring it speaks volumes.
2 Likes
Yes, by that logic there were no lynchings and no sexual assaults against Black women by White men in the Jim Crow South since lack of convictions equals lack of crime.
Or could it be that prosecutors ignore evidence that is politically inconvenient?
If the evidence existed… I am sure that O’Keefe turned over all of the tapes and all of the evidence… right?
Some posters here- they cite only the best, most upstanding citizens, I tell you.
Blago! 
Nice deflection there from “lack of evidence” to “lack of convictions”.
So smooth I bet you were sure no one would notice you did that.
3 Likes
Or they believe the New York Times self-admitted “opinions” instead of actual video evidence.
Selective prosecution is nothing new.
Hey… did O’Keefe turn his video evidence over to law enforcement?
I am sure if there was slam dunk evidence he would have had no problem giving the authorities the unedited footage so they could use it to prosecute wrongdoers.
So… did that happen?
there we have what? I do believe they will find and evidence additional instances of fraud. how many? I don’t believe it will be consequential. Facts are what they are, by its nature, some fraud succeeds. The likelihood of finding some that slipped through is high. The likelihood of finding massive amounts is low.
unsolicited mail in balloting is an invitation to fraud especially when procedures are not in place to ensure to the greatest degree possible that the ballot the precinct gets back came from the same person they sent it to. unmanned drop boxes were set on fire, how many people’s votes were lost? is preventing a legal vote from being counted by destroying it not also election fraud? the worst however id harvesting, which should be outlawed in every event.
and that has exactly what to do with this one?
If there was allegedly election fraud in the presidential election, that would imply there was election fraud in other elections.
There’s no place where there aren’t procedures in place to guard against the things you fear. Not even in California or New Jersey did that happen.
That you believe there are shows you don’t really know how these things work, and are relying on The Narrative to inform your thinking.
2 Likes