They don’t need to. But the dems did not need to do that stupid Trump/ Russia thing either. They did it because they felt like it.
Off topic. But. Okay.
Bring it! Had such evidence been forthcoming I might have been storming the capital yesterday with the Qanon Trumpservatives.
Okay.
Without proof, their cause was essentially unjust.
The accusation is newsworthy because of who made it. It should be followed up on. But it certainly is not even close to proof. He needs to back able to back it up. I’ll believe it when I see it.
This is just getting sad now…
Buncha dead enders.
Trumps lawyer withdrew himself claiming the election cases were used to commit crimes. Doesn’t bode well for the evidence they claim to have.
Who’s susceptible?
He didn’t say you said anything.
He’s asking you a question that requires you to reason through to a conclusion.
The damn Deep State is everywhere.
Now they got to Trump’s lawyers.
Do you think it was the rape a child shoot a child scheme with which they got Justice Roberts?
Sorry dude. There just isn’t enough info to reach a conclusion. Unless he shows us how he came to HIS conclusion we cannot offer one. You’re over thinking this a bit. I would like to hear more. I’m not convinced I will. If we don’t it’s time to move on.
There absolutely is enough information for you to come to a reasoned conclusion…should you wish to, that is.
Georgia did a hand recount of the physical ballots.
What that hand count came up with matched (with some small changes) the results of the original Election Day count.
Please enlighten us as to how a hand recount of the physical paper ballots, done in multiple facilities separated by hundreds of miles, could exactly replicate an algorithmically generated or altered vote count.
It’s not difficult to figure out the answer to this question, but I’ll give you a bit to try.
No. There is not. Please don’t speak for me. Fair enough?
Yeah there is…there was a hand count
Oh and it didn’t take long to find this story, which raises some very good questions about this “sworn affidavit”.
- Zack states the attorney “Prof Alfio d’ Urso,” who provided the affidavit is a “top lawyer” in Italy, however, typical searches reveal little information on his name.
- The affidavit contains no typical markings, stamps or notarization.
- The affidavit contains no physical address of any kind.
- The affidavit eludes to the concern of safety for the individual, who is often referenced in the interview as ‘this person’ while fully named in the affidavit.
- The claimed witness and provocateur, Arturo D’Elia, is one of two persons whom were arrested in December 2020 for an incident involving data theft at Leonardo, over alleged roles in hacking computers located at one of the defense contractors plants.
The second and third points about the “affidavit” are the most damning. No official markings- no notarization- no physical address.
I found this picture of what markings one would expect to see on an official affidavit in Italy. I can’t swear for a fact this is what one would expect to see…but one would certainly expect to see witness signatures and/or a seal to show the affidavit is official.
Nope- doesn’t pass the smell test.
It’s the new birther movement
1 Like
Why not? You won’t speak for you.
It’s a simple task- please explain for us here how a hand recount of physical ballots could come up with the exact same result as a supposedly computer-altered or algorithmically generated count.
It isn’t proven. It is a ludicrous claim so why should we listen to this “heavyweight” for his “evidence” that apparently “republicans are to intimidated to ask”?
Pretty sure that’s because of Antifa.
