445

Oh lol, yeah they didn’t do anything in response, hilarious.

446

And if you don’t think 80% of a country not trusting elections is possible civil war territory, crack a history book. And last I checked Republicans weren’t even close to being 80 percent of this country, so there is your bothsiderism.

1 Like
447

This post just abdicates reality to the nutjobs. They are not owed their version of the truth. You know the only result they will accept is that Trump was defrauded and him being put back into office.

448

In 18 months there have been a number of audits, court cases and investigations and they all came up with no indication of wide-spread election fraud. And the Trump supporters don’t seem to care. Hell, one phone call from Trump to Wisconsin re-started a investigation that will be sucking up more tax-payer money after they found nothing. IMHO only when Trump admits that he lost the election this whole silly thing might end.

449

Nah most of them got tossed on standing. And no audit would have caught ballot harvesting.

1 Like
450

No they were not. The majority of cases were dismissed because the Trump campaign Lawyers could not offer up any evidence.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

451

And especially not when it’s a political inspired prosecution.

JWK

452

:roll_eyes:

Which court actually gave a hearing and reviewed the evidence?

Well, in fact, here is one court that did:

And, here is another court that actually looked at the evidence:

Now, as you were saying?

JWK

453

Your deflection from how terrible a person Dinesh is is noted.

1 Like
454

The “deflection” was away from your absurd opinion.

JWK

1 Like
455

Tired old attack the source crud.

1 Like
456

The Georgia case was thrown out in October by that same judge, who while he ruled based on the plaintiffs having no standing, nonetheless reviewed the evidence from the stacks of ballots where the plaintiff claimed to have seen these “pristine ballots”…and none were found.

But of course the claim will now be they were “thrown away”, I’m sure.

2 Likes
457

Dinesh’s credibility is very much a valid line of inquiry here because he as in complete control of the “evidence” and how it was presented.

1 Like
458

No need to rely on personality when hard evidence exists.

1 Like
459

The hard evidence is not being put out there for anyone to look at.

It has been edited and preselected.

When you watch the movie you will find D’Souza never once shows a video of a “repeat visitor”. To try and establish repeat visits, he switches to the dubious cell phone geolocation data.

Supposedly they have all this video footage.

You think if there had been any repeat visitors in the footage, D’Souza wouldn’t have put that footage in the movie?

Yet he didn’t.

You do the calculation.

1 Like
460

And also in 2000.

And also in 2004.

Libs have a habit of crying foul when they don’t get their way, just like a 2 year old. The fact that the right had doubts this time is nothing more than a lib’s saving grace from their own ugly reflection in the mirror. :wink:

461

Democrats believe Trump had help from foreign interference that spread misinformation, not widespread voter fraud or ballot tampering for which there is zero evidence.

And most stopped that line of attack long before Hillary did.

462

Why would it take this long to find all the rampant fraud?

463

and GA.

464

If the film is full of lies, it’s a rip off.