I'm curious. I've gone to certain sources for years. Wall Street Journal editorial section. National Review. Modern venue podcasts such as The Editors featuring editors of the National Review which has been around for 60 years. I listen to podcasts featuring right of center thought and theory. The Dispatch. Mad Dogs and Englishmen. Even the young fire brand Ben Shapiro. All of these outlets say the election was not stolen. All of these outlets say voter irregularities did happen but not to the point of stealing this election. These irregularities happen with each election. Not one court case produced any evidence to the contrary. Trump acted horribly but not illegally. Putting all that aside I'd really like to know. Where do you get your information? Who do you listen to?

In reference to the video that sdy linked about the CNN reporter....that’s only the first half of the video. I just saw the same video on Gab (can’t figure out how to grab it from there though) that continues on with him (John Sullivan) later when it’s dark out walking down the street and he’s bragging how he bought a Trump hat and posed as a Trump supporter earlier. Just so nobody wonders if it’s really him or not. Same exact voice from the shortened video that only shows the female from CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
Not one court case produced any evidence to the contrary.

There were trials held so evidence could be presented? I must have missed that!

quote:

Originally posted by Largefarva:
In reference to the video that sdy linked about the CNN reporter....that’s only the first half of the video. I just saw the same video on Gab (can’t figure out how to grab it from there though) that continues on with him (John Sullivan) later when it’s dark out walking down the street and he’s bragging how he bought a Trump hat and posed as a Trump supporter earlier. Just so nobody wonders if it’s really him or not. Same exact voice from the shortened video that only shows the female from CNN.

I'm not sure how Gab works but could you possibly copy and paste the address from the address bar. I'd really like to see the rest of that video. I've been saving all of the videos that I can to my hard drive in case they disappear. That sounds like one I'd like to keep.

Goose5, consider something, what happens to those outlets if they go against the media’s chosen narrative? Maybe they are saying what they are saying because to speak the truth would get them attacked and maybe destroyed by the increasingly militant leftist media cartel. They could also lose credibility among their own customers. At best they get labeled a fringe media outlet worse case scenario they get driven out of business. Without clear evidence of wide spread cheating they would be labeled lunatics and discredited by a rabid media barrage from multiple rival outlets.

Unfortunately I have not seen one media outlet bring up the fact that cheating doesn’t have to be widespread to effect an election. It need only be targeted to a few areas where it would have the maximum effect. There were so many changes made with ballots and mailing in ballots that it opens the process up to fraud and makes auditing an election potentially impossible.

Another thing to consider is if the election was so secure why the rush to run out the clock? Why the mass censorship and media crackdown on any dissenting voice? Why did a MAJOR media outlet prior to the election say something to us to the effect of “it is our job to say who won elections” then delete that tweet?

It opens the video player on my phone. I’ve tried to press and hold but nothing works. Might be by design for gab. Dunno.

Who posted the video on GAB? Can you take a screen shot?

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
Not one court case produced any evidence to the contrary.

There were trials held so evidence could be presented? I must have missed that!

The actions the President's legal team brought to challenge the election results were civil actions, not criminal ones. There would be no trial by juries. His legal team would have had to present evidence to a judge of election fraud or irregularities in sufficient number to overturn the results of the election. It would not be sufficient to submit a couple of examples of election fraud. The President's team would be free to turn over any evidence of election fraud
to a prosecutor for criminal action. But that would be separate from the civil action challenging the election results. The President's team was able to present evidence of voter fraud. It's just that it was before a judge, not a jury.

The fact is that the President's legal team was unable to provide evidence that there was voter fraud in sufficient numbers to change the results of the election in any state. This includes cases presented in front of Trump appointed judges. (Just as an aside this is more proof that all those lefty Demokrats were full of shit when they claimed that the Trump judges would be crazies who would do the President's bidding and follow a far right crazy agenda).

So it is just simply a fact that the President's legal team was given an opportunity to present evidence of voter fraud. (Again keep in mind that it would have to be in sufficient numbers to overturn the results of the election). They were not successful. You might be able to make a case that maybe some of those Trump judges were compromised in some manner so that they ruled against the President. But I think it would be a tough sell to suggest that every single Trump judge in every single jurisdiction was somehow compromised to the extent that they ruled against the President,

quote:

Originally posted by petr:
Who posted the video on GAB? Can you take a screen shot?

Don’t remember. It was hours ago and the site is super slow.

quote:

The fact is that the President's legal team was unable to provide evidence that there was voter fraud

What Trump provided aside.....

There are still lawsuits pending. The AZ legislature subpoenaed their Dominion machines and ballots and have been fought every step of the way.

How can one possibly present any real evidence when any and all attempts to obtain the evidence are fought? Especially considering the time lines involved.

Perhaps we should limit all federal investigations to 60 days, and if you can't build your case then "oh well".

quote:

The fact is that the President's legal team was unable to provide evidence that there was voter fraud

--- in sufficient numbers to overturn the election. Don't forget that.

There absolutely was voter fraud. Always is. If you google voter fraud and then type in your state name, you will find examples. I did that here in NJ. You will find examples. Not ashamed to admit it. One guy was arrested for filling out and mailing an absentee ballot for his dead mother. It was a Trump vote. I have no doubt that the vast majority go the other way, but it happens.

So can anyone point to a court ruling where cases filed by President Trumps lawyers was dismissed for lack of evidence?

Seems to me, being dismissed on procedural grounds implies evidence was not presented.

How did they determine how many votes were affected by the fractional voting?
Which Judge determined that it was not enough to affect the election results?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:


Perhaps we should limit all federal investigations to 60 days, and if you can't build your case then "oh well".

exactly this. complex cases take many months to build -- and that's when orgs are actually ON BOARD to look for something.

plus -- states are being asked to 'investigate themselves'. extremely strong motivation to say 'NOPE -- NO FRAUD HERE'... what do we expect them to say?

the investigations / audits / certifications were sham efforts. mail in voting an absolute travesty.

--------------------------------

Fraud cases typically take years.

This is my understanding as well.

And there are pending cases in PA (including at SCOTUS) and MI as well, IIRC


https://www.9and10news.com/202...ng-to-2020-election/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/a...ice/?sh=47b4f12a2fcb

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
So can anyone point to a court ruling where cases filed by President Trumps lawyers was dismissed for lack of evidence?

Seems to me, being dismissed on procedural grounds implies evidence was not presented.

Leaked Video Reveals Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s Internal Discussions Before Trump Ban

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...reaking-2021-01-15-1

Investigative journalism nonprofit Project Veritas on Thursday released a leaked video that appears to show Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s internal discussions before President Donald Trump’s account was banned on the social media platform following the breach of the U.S. Capitol building.

“You should always feel free to express yourself in whatever format manifestation feels right,” Dorsey said in the clip, purportedly secretly filmed by a Twitter “insider whistleblower.”

“We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and it’s going to go on beyond the inauguration,” Dorsey added. “And we have to expect that and we have to be ready for that.”

“So, the focus is certainly on this account and how it ties to real-world violence. But also, we need to think much longer-term around how these dynamics play out over time. I don’t believe this is going away anytime soon,” Dorsey told staff in the clip.

Project Veritas suggested in a Twitter post that the video leak is evidence of “censorship gone wild.”

Twitter permanently banned Trump from its platform on Jan. 8, two days after a mob broke into the U.S. Capitol during a joint session of Congress convened to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. The company alleged that Trump had incited the violence.

The move was met with criticism from world leaders, including the president of France and chancellor of Germany. Trump accused Twitter of colluding with the Democrats. Facebook and YouTube have also removed Trump’s accounts.

In the leaked video that has accumulated over two million views in a few hours, Dorsey suggested he may be planning to enforce “much bigger” actions than the ban of Trump on the platform, making reference to a company purge of QAnon linked accounts.

A large number of pro-Trump accounts have recently been deleted by Twitter.

“You know, the U.S. is extremely divided. Our platform is showing that every single day,” Dorsey said. “And our role is to protect the integrity of that conversation and do what we can to make sure that no one is being harmed based off that. And that is our focus.”

James O’Keefe, founder of the journalism watchdog group, said Thursday that further leaks from the social media giant are coming from other whistleblowers.

“Stay tuned. They may be private companies, but they have more power than all three branches of government,” O’Keefe told viewers.

Twitter didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

The clip’s release follows a statement from Dorsey on Jan. 13 in which he acknowledged that the company’s decision to remove Trump was divisive and set a dangerous precedent.

“Having to take these actions fragment [sic] the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation,” Dorsey wrote on Twitter.

“I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban [Trump] from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?” Dorsey continued.

“I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.”

One final snub


Trump:

Kept you out of war, finally got NATO to stop freeloading AND replenished a worn down military that Osama Obama used and abused for 8 years

Pentagon:

Piss off!


Pentagon Won’t Throw Traditional Farewell Ceremony for Trump

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:

quote:

The fact is that the President's legal team was unable to provide evidence that there was voter fraud

--- in sufficient numbers to overturn the election. Don't forget that.

First of all: The President's team absolutely presented evidence there was voter fraud. And they presented evidence there was fraud in numbers sufficient to affect the outcome of the election. What they didn't provide was proof of either. Evidence ≠ proof.

Part of the problem was they were shut down by all the courts. In many cases on procedural grounds only. In other cases because the Judges decided their evidence was either not believable or was not compelling.

From what I saw, many of those were like saying "Ok, you see smoke, but have you seen actual fire? No? Case dismissed."

Worse than that was the absolute failure of U.S. law enforcement, at any level, to pursue any of the claims based on the evidence presented. E.g.: Barr claimed federal LE had looked into the claims of election fraud and found nothing, yet, according to Guiliani, not a single one of the people they had that had signed sworn affidavits were interviewed.

As I've said before: I do not know there was significant fraud. I do not know it occurred to the extent that it would affect the outcomes of any elections. What I do know is I have what I feel to be reasonable suspicions both occurred and "my" government, at all levels, in all three branches, dropped the ball. Thus I have no confidence anybody elected in this last election was elected legitimately.

And I never will.

Has the FBI found Ruby Freeman yet?