Trump Evangelical Advisers Back Voting Challenges But Stop Short of Alleging Fraud
I am no prophet, but there is one thing I do know. There is no way… no way, the SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision is going to throw out millions of votes in multiple states. No way.
No way.
No way.
No way.
Got it?
[Mark_Smith]SCOTUS does not have to throw out millions of votes in multiple states to change the outcome. The last I heard, the margin of “victory” for Biden-Harris is less than 12,000 in GA and AZ; around 20,000 or less in WI; under 40,000 in NV; under 100,000 in PA; and under 200,000 in MI. Far more votes than these in each of these states are under dispute as being fraudulent.I am no prophet, but there is one thing I do know. There is no way… no way, the SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision is going to throw out millions of votes in multiple states. No way.
No way.
No way.
No way.
Got it?
If SCOTUS or the state legislatures or both were to order that signature verification and other forensic examinations be done in just the 4-5 most populous counties of each of these states and throw out all illegal ballots that would be found by doing that, that would very likely be more than enough to change the outcome.
Given the importance of what is at stake, these would be perfectly legitimate steps for SCOTUS or the state legislatures or both to take.
That is pure fantasy. Ain’t gonna happen. And you know it.
[Mark_Smith]You are probably right that it is not going to happen, but it should so that everyone can know who legitimately was the winner of this election. If there is not anything to hide, no one should have any objection to a full scrutiny of the ballots, and all the other evidence, etc.That is pure fantasy. Ain’t gonna happen. And you know it.
It is telling when state judges and other authorities dismiss cases without allowing a full presentation and examination of the evidence.
Here is one example of something that absolutely should be fully investigated. It likely will not be, but it should be to see what is found out:
Don’t think there are voter issues in Georgia? I have 57,793 reasons to reconsider that.
FACT: 43,507 (75%) of these individuals DID NOT vote in person on election day.
Strongly suggest verifying these alleged facts. Putting “fact” in front of something doesn’t make it a fact.
But often the biggest errors come in drawing conclusions.
Compare to other facts and these cherry picked ones often prove to not mean much.
Anyway, all the court proceedings are, and will be, public record, and in most cases, the truth becomes pretty obvious.
It isn’t rational to suppose that suddenly our entire judicial system has collapsed. But the probability of the whole stolen election story is so low as to be irrational to begin with.
More sensible than flat earth or Breatharianism, but not by a whole lot.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]I agree entirely that alleged facts should be verified, which is why I said that there should be a full investigation to see what develops.Strongly suggest verifying these alleged facts. Putting “fact” in front of something doesn’t make it a fact.
But often the biggest errors come in drawing conclusions.
Compare to other facts and these cherry picked ones often prove to not mean much.
Anyway, all the court proceedings are, and will be, public record, and in most cases, the truth becomes pretty obvious.
It isn’t rational to suppose that suddenly our entire judicial system has collapsed. But the probability of the whole stolen election story is so low as to be irrational to begin with.
More sensible than flat earth or Breatharianism, but not by a whole lot.
In case you might not have caught it, all the statements about those supposed facts in my post were direct quotes from the article. I am not the one who asserted that these are “facts.”
Rajesh,
Your sources are not reliable. The Right Scoop? That’s right-wing social media click-bait propaganda rather than news. It uses strong, loaded words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes, rather than neutral language, it rarely uses trusted sources ( Facebook posts? Really?) and the reporters don’t use their real names, but rather the internet screen name. If I submitted an article that used The Right Scoop as a source in any document, it wouldn’t be taken seriously anywhere by any publishing company, journal, or academic institution.
With all of the crazy conspiracy articles that you continue to post from click-bait sources, It seems as if you are throwing loads of mud against the wall to see if anything will stick and so far none of it does. Also, the full investigation isn’t warranted because so much of the “evidence” that is being presented is based on hearsay. Its being thrown out by conservative constitutionalist judges,(Two of which Trump appointed) not activist judges from the left. Very interesting that many of those that Trump appointed (not only judges but also the Krems the CISA director) have opposed Trump’s false narrative of the election being stolen and fraudulent because of the lack of evidence and the misinformation/lies about voting systems, absentee ballots, and etc.. by Trump and his lawyers. Thank God that they are not being political, but rather being faithful to the oath they took.
[Joel Shaffer]Joel,Rajesh,
Your sources are not reliable. The Right Scoop? That’s right-wing social media click-bait propaganda rather than news. It uses strong, loaded words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes, rather than neutral language, it rarely uses trusted sources ( Facebook posts? Really?) and the reporters don’t use their real names, but rather the internet screen name. If I submitted an article that used The Right Scoop as a source in any document, it wouldn’t be taken seriously anywhere by any publishing company, journal, or academic institution.
With all of the crazy conspiracy articles that you continue to post from click-bait sources, It seems as if you are throwing loads of mud against the wall to see if anything will stick and so far none of it does. Also, the full investigation isn’t warranted because so much of the “evidence” that is being presented is based on hearsay. Its being thrown out by conservative constitutionalist judges,(Two of which Trump appointed) not activist judges from the left. Very interesting that many of those that Trump appointed (not only judges but also the Krems the CISA director) have opposed Trump’s false narrative of the election being stolen and fraudulent because of the lack of evidence and the misinformation/lies about voting systems, absentee ballots, and etc.. by Trump and his lawyers. Thank God that they are not being political, but rather being faithful to the oath they took.
I understand the concerns that you are raising in these comments. Are you actually willing to consider evidence properly regardless of the source of the evidence?
Perhaps, this article may illustrate some key differences between us:
https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2020/11/30/hey-msm-affi…
I do not know if you consider Townhall.com to be reliable or not. Regardless, do you agree or disagree with the legal information discussed in the article that affidavits, etc. are valid evidence that merits further investigation? It appears that many are ready to dismiss affidavits as more or less unsubstantial. You may not hold that perspective, but I wonder if others do.
The evidence presented in many of these affidavits, as I understand it, is not hearsay evidence.
I find this information from the article especially noteworthy:
Powell not only has affidavits from witnesses, she has affidavits from whistleblowers who admit they participated in the election fraud. In criminal law — which has a much higher burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt — that’s called a slam dunk.
I have not yet heard about these whistleblowers’ affidavits; provided that they are legitimate, I would think that they would necessitate thorough investigations.
If this were fake news, would not the FBI have very quickly put out a statement saying that this is all false? Just because it is from Newsmax does not automatically mean that the information is suspect.
It is interesting to me that so many of the same people who vehemently decried the multitude of non-stop flimsy accusations against Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings two years ago are now part of the very vocal constituency demanding that every claim of election fraudulence is merit-worthy of investigation, and who believe that the sheer number of flimsy claims is surely proof of deliberate widespread electoral malfeasance.
The saddest thing about all this is the number of prominent Christian leaders - men who should desire to be known only for proclaiming Christ crucified and shepherding their flocks through God’s Word - who have voluntarily reduced themselves to being base and indiscriminate promoters of the latest conspiracy theories.
John B. Lee
It’s based on Hearsay from the Amistad Lawyer. Let’s actually look to people who are directly connected to the FBI, such as the US Attorney General, Aaron Burr, who said this today.
Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
His comments in an interview with The Associated Press come despite President Donald Trump’s repeated baseless claims that the election was stolen, Trump’s effort to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election and his refusal to concede his loss to President-Elect Joe Biden.
Barr said U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but they’ve uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election. Barr was headed to the White House later for a previously scheduled meeting.
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/andy-biggs-arizona-trump-campaign-la…
The video interview with Rep. Andy Biggs in this article lasts 6:18. He was at the hearing in AZ and is fully convinced that there is enough evidence to sustain a lawsuit in AZ concerning the election.
[Joel Shaffer]It’s based on Hearsay from the Amistad Lawyer. Let’s actually look to people who are directly connected to the FBI, such as the US Attorney General, Aaron Burr, who said this today.
Lot’s of history connected with that name, but this is the first time I’ve heard him connected to 2020 election fraud.
I mean, William Barr! Thanks, Ken for the catch!
Discussion