I expect the surprise session today will have some actionable revelation.

TheImplication wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:49 am Just imagine if they would have put even half this effort into an actual investigation into voter fraud and ballot stuffing. Instead, any question of illegitimacy is some wild partisan conspiracy theory because people are scared of what it might uncover.

It’s just sad that liberals believing in the Big Lie (Russian collusion) could get a special investigation by Mueller based on Hillary’s piss dossier, but Americans seeing fraud with their own eyes as the results come in are told to just deal with it. Even the most partisan person should want their side to win legitimately and be eager to prove it.

I know that you'll never be persuaded but people who believe the nonsense contained in your post should watch the hearings, it would help drag you back to reality. To say that Trump's claims were not investigated is complete and utter bullsh*t. 62 court cases, FBI investigations, DOJ investigations, state investigations in about 15 states, at every turn the claims were found to be unfounded. The Repulicans, some of whom Trump appointed have testified about them repeatedly, explaining what they found - No evidence to support the claims.

Who are these people who saw fraud with their own eyes? Please do tell me? There was a truck driver who claimed to have taken a tractor trailer of ballots from New York to Pensylvania, the FBI investigated and spoke to people who loaded the trailer and unloaded it and found it to be nonsense.

Watch the video above about the "red mirage". A Fox News election specialist explains that in EVERY election for 20 years or more Republicans win the election day votes and democrats win the postal votes because historically Replublicans prefer to vote in person and democrats are happy to complete postal votes. In certain states they aren't allowed to start counting postal votes until election day AFTER in person votes. He explains EVERY election Republican candidates start out ahead and then democratic candidates catch up. Trump knew this, that's why he told his supporters NOT to vote in person and started pushing his claims BEFORE the election, to warm you guys up.

I have more videos to post from the hearings that detail the investigations and what they found but I have two day jobs and I've been busy.

Was there fraud or not? To claim there wasn’t any with all the available analysis is just putting your head in the sand. Even the media has switched their stance from no fraud to ‘the fraud wasn’t enough to change the outcome in any meaningful way”. I’m not going to go through it all because nothing will ever change your mind. For many, Trump “losing” was worth half of the US losing their rights to free and fair elections to get it done. 1000 mules just uncovered a fraction of what we already knew. There needed to be an independent investigation, not letting it fester where republicans or democrats started forming wild speculative theory’s or talking points, but truly independent. It wasn’t done and you have to ask yourself why?

The filmmaker of 1000 mules has stated that nothing in this documentary has been proven as factual. It’s actually nothing more than fiction.

The states that the former POTUS was crying about all did recounts initiated and controlled by the GOP, at the states taxpayers expense, even though he raised millions of dollars to do it but kept it for himself, and actually found that Biden won by more votes than the original count. So that doesn’t count as intentional or widespread fraud on either side.

So who has their head in the sand?

"1000 mules just uncovered a fraction of what we already knew."

I keep hearing or seeing people write about all the vote-rigging that went on but nobody can ever specifically say what exactly it was.

"What we already knew"... what exactly did we already know? It sounds like you're just repeating what people like Trump, Giuliani, and that other nutcase lawyer Sidney Powell kept asserting, and that was disproven in every case, sometimes several times and after multiple audits.

Team Trump supposedly had a 'kraken of evidence that will be released soon' yet none was ever presented. The allegations they took to court were either disproven or thrown out because they were just ridiculous with nothing to substantiate their claims.

TheImplication wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:41 am Was there fraud or not? To claim there wasn’t any with all the available analysis is just putting your head in the sand.

I'm "putting my head in the sand" lol. Sorry but to say that is patently ridiculous, I read a lot, not just on this subject but in general, possibly too much but I enjoy reading and learning, always have, always will I suppose. And when I say read, I mean books, newpapers, journals, studies, printed media by people with experience and knowledge that I often lack. I find it enlightening to be informed by someone who has spent their lifetime aquiring knowledge of a particular subject. I read from all sources and think about the bias contained within EVERY source and rate it accordingly. Just about everything I post is backed up with quotes and links to the sources to allow people to understand those biases as well. Your posts contain vague references to unspecified events without any quotes or sources. Statements like "what we already knew." are a classic example, who is this "we", and what did "we" know?

TheImplication wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:41 am I’m not going to go through it all because nothing will ever change your mind.

This is the issue, I'm happy for you to post any of the things "we" allegedly already knew so I can understand where you're coming from. I will look for evidence of those things and if it's there I am more than happy to change my mind.

If you never change your mind, why have one? - Edward de Bono

You also mention "all the available analysis" and that this somehow backs up your assertions but to be clear. 1. Analysis is just someone drawing conclusions, it is not evidence. Garbage in garbage out. Accusations of voter fraud need evidence, not some idiotic talking heads on a US Newstainment show or YouTube videos. 2. You clearly do not have "all the available anaysis" because you refuse to engage with the investigation to uncover what went on.

You can claim it's partisan all you want but that's not a reason not to watch it. If you watch it, engage with the evidence, you can counter inaccuracies or bad faith testimony. Refusing to watch it is, as you put it, "putting your head in the sand".

TheImplication wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:41 am Even the media has switched their stance from no fraud to ‘the fraud wasn’t enough to change the outcome in any meaningful way”.

This is just lazy distration to a semantical arguement. The media has not switched its stance, it has sharpened its terminology. To say there is no fraud in any election is a broad statement almost impossible to verify with certainty. What can be said is that in every election there will be irregularities. For example, 3 states — Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia — permanently disenfranchise a felony convict and 6 other states limited restoration based on crimes of "moral turpitude". Some felons may move states unaware of the different rules and vote illegally. Another example would be an old person who votes early by post, forgets about it and wanders down on election day and votes again.

Mark Meadows (Trump's White House Chief of Staff) has been removed from the voter rolls of North Carolina and is being investigated for illegal voting as he was registered as living in Virginia and voted there in 2021. Was is fraud? Unlikely but if true it's not a valid vote. There are also usually a few cases of actual fraud, take for example this Republican who voted for his recently deceased father as his dying wish (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/re ... on-n1271985). He forged his signature and in effect voted twice.

The point is this stuff always goes on, it does not however have any impact on the outcome of each election. Just look at the margins that Biden won by. Florida in 2001 came down to a margin of only 537 votes out of almost six million cast (0.009%), with recounts changing the result by only 1,247 votes. In 2020, in the 6 key swing states the closest margin was 10,457 (0.3%) in Arizona, followed by Georgia 12,670 (0.2%) and Wisconsin 20,682 (0.6%), Trump needed to flip AT LEAST these 3 states in the courts to get level with Biden in the electoral college, this would mean finding 43,811 cases of voter fraud. (https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/94068908 ... presidency)




An analysis of 31 recounts in 5,778 statewide general elections between 2000 and 2019 found only 3 instances where they changed the outcome of the election. That's 0.052% of the total elections. The average swing between initial and recounts was 393.


https://ballotpedia.org/Noteworthy_reco ... ted_States

An (independent?) Associated Press review, a process that took months and encompassed more than 300 local election offices, is one the most comprehensive examinations of suspected voter fraud in last year’s presidential election. It relies on information collected at the local level, where officials must reconcile their ballots and account for discrepancies, and includes a handful of separate cases cited by secretaries of state and state attorneys general. This review looked at every potential case of voter fraud in ALL SIX battleground states disputed by Donald Trump and found fewer than 475 cases. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a ... n-to-trump)

You raised the film 1000 Mules, as mentioned previously in this thread I've not yet brought myself to watch it (after giving up on his Hillary film) but I'm leaning more and more to watching it to understand the various claims fully from the that perspective. It is interesting to note as posted in a previous video that Bill Barr scoffed at the film in his testimony and debunked various claims made in it during that testimony. To be clear Bill Barr was the AG appointed by Trump to discredit the Russia investigation, why on earth would he turn on his mentor if there was evidence in that film about irregularities? Think about it?

TheImplication wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:41 am For many, Trump “losing” was worth half of the US losing their rights to free and fair elections to get it done.

More distraction, what rights have been lost, what evidence is there this election was not free and fair? Please enlighten me, very happy to be proved wrong. If it's true it would be a massive story, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's true many people dislike Trump, there's a lot to dislike. He's a proven liar, fraudster, sexual abuser these are all verifiable facts. But if he won the election he should be the President. But he didn't, it wasn't stolen, he lost it and is the first president in US history to refuse to support the peaceful transition of power, something that is central to American democracy.

TheImplication wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:41 am There needed to be an independent investigation, not letting it fester where republicans or democrats started forming wild speculative theory’s or talking points, but truly independent. It wasn’t done and you have to ask yourself why?

This statement unfortunately displays your ignorance in what has gone on. An independent 9/11 style commission was proposed in 2021 and the House of Representatives voted in favour by 252-175 including 35 Republicans. It was torpedoed in the senate after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed it on Trumps insistence and whipped his senators to vote it down. The vote was 54-35 in favour but Republicans withdrew their votes so it failed to reach the 60 required. They instead said that existing congressional powers be used which is why it ended up as a Senate enquiry. (https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/10005248 ... pitol-riot)

If you claim that the commission wouldn't be independent and another form of "independent" investigation be held then again you're showing your ignorance as that is the only form of investigation the US political system is set up to instigate. There is and has never been anything else, it doesn't exist. An independent commission would consist of 5 senators from each party with subpoena powers and Trump was terrified he would be forced to testify under oath. He's now whinging about the lack of representation on the enquiry because they also refused to engage with it until it was too late.

Finally let's take a favourite claim regarding Dominion voting machines, Trump claimed repeatedly that a report had found an error rate of 68% in Antrim County, Michigan. An audit, by hand of all 16,044 paper ballots cast in Antrim County found an error rate of just .0063%. lol!
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checkin ... 9847904839

Interesting development to watch...

Secret Service lead and presidential driver are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did NOT grab steering wheel or lunge at agents to drive himself to Capitol on January 6

• Bobby Engel, the lead agent on Trump's detail, and the presidential driver at the time are prepared to testify under oath to the committee that Hutchinson's testimony is incorrect, according to multiple news outlets.

• 'I'm the effing president, take me to the Capitol now,' Cassidy Hutchinson, Mark Meadows' top aide, said Trump ordered.

• 'Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing, we're not going to the Capitol,' Hutchinson was told Secret Service agent Robert Engel said.

• 'Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel,' Hutchinson recalled.

• Hutchinson was revealed to be the surprise witness for Tuesday's last-minute January 6 hearing.

• Hutchinson also testified that Trump was 'furious' that his armed supporters were not allowed into the official grounds for his Stop The Steal rally on Jan. 6.

• 'Who cares if they have weapons, they're not here to hurt me,' the former president allegedly said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... wheel.html

down_time wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:17 am Interesting development to watch...

Secret Service lead and presidential driver are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did NOT grab steering wheel or lunge at agents to drive himself to Capitol on January 6

• Bobby Engel, the lead agent on Trump's detail, and the presidential driver at the time are prepared to testify under oath to the committee that Hutchinson's testimony is incorrect, according to multiple news outlets.

• 'I'm the effing president, take me to the Capitol now,' Cassidy Hutchinson, Mark Meadows' top aide, said Trump ordered.

• 'Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing, we're not going to the Capitol,' Hutchinson was told Secret Service agent Robert Engel said.

• 'Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel,' Hutchinson recalled.

• Hutchinson was revealed to be the surprise witness for Tuesday's last-minute January 6 hearing.

• Hutchinson also testified that Trump was 'furious' that his armed supporters were not allowed into the official grounds for his Stop The Steal rally on Jan. 6.

• 'Who cares if they have weapons, they're not here to hurt me,' the former president allegedly said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... wheel.html

That’s why people shouldn’t speak under oath about something unless they have first hand knowledge of something, because even if it is true, and even if an individual did tell you, it’s still just hearsay.