For those who need proof of election fraud....

It's not a question of getting the story "wrong" as much as it's making the (Ohio primary) election front-page news beforehand, then burying the outcome afterwards deep within their print and online editions, so few people will see it.




Now you're the liar. The Ohio primary race was a headline before the ballots were cast and counted. Once it became clear the Trump-endorsed candidate won, the result was barely covered. You make it seem like Trump contradicted himself when he didn't.




No, munchy's post is very UNTRUE. There were two elections. Both were given MSM attention prior to the votes. After the votes, the one in Texas (where the Trump-endorsed candidate lost) garnered most of the MSM attention while the one in Ohio (where the Trump-endorsed candidate won) was downplayed.

Your Newsweek link corroborates this. The headline is about the TX primary. The reader has to wade halfway through the story before the OH primary is mentioned.

C'mon speedy. You understand how media bias works. It can be brazen and egregious, or subtle and nuanced. Fortunately, most Americans are smart enough to recognize both types of bias. Originally Posted by lustylad

He doesn’t understand how media bias works. He constantly refers to “fact checkers” like Snopes and Politifact.

That’s definitely NOT how courts work. At all. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Don't stop him... he's busy digging a hole...

Thank u - SR

Keep digging the hole that will swallow the DPST sheeples come Nov 2022 and 2024.

Unless you can totally subjugate and subvert the electoral process with HR-1 before than
What say U - sheeples???
BAAA - we are blinded by TDS and Trump hatred.

and when they come for Us - - w will go to slaughter willingly and docilely.

Give me an allegation that YOU believe has been substantiated as significant voter fraud in Arizona or Georgia. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Define substantiated for me...

If you say Dominion servers changed votes from Trump to Biden supply proof that that happened. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Well see you just changed the terms. There are allegations. Until those can be openly investigated and evidentiary hearings heard, there isn't "proof" per se. Democrats are fighting the investigation which might substantiate the allegations. Why? If there was no fraud, investigations would and should be welcomed because legitimate elections are in all citizens best interests. Civil strife only results when one side doubts the legitimacy of the election. Please explain how in normal counting processes the below occurs...



How do mail in ballots arrive before they are sent? There may be a perfectly logical explanation for it, but I have as yet to see any. instead all I've seen are people being banned who mention such things and screams of "Where is the proof?!" Well, let's investigate and determine the facts... but Democrats don't want to do that because FUCK YOU THAT'S WHY!

If you say illegal voters voted for Biden in the thousands supply proof that that happened. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again you want PROOF before allowing an investigation. Is that how criminal investigations work? I mean what would constitute PROOF prior to allowing an investigation?

There are sworn affidavits that there was election fraud... But you want PROOF before the investigation.

If this were a murder investigation, you'd have video evidence, sworn testimony, statistical data that points to the killer and yet you'd still be asking for PROOF prior to investigation and trial. Does that make a whole lot of sense?

If you say votes were rescanned several times provide proof that that happened. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There's FCUKING video of the boxes of ballots pulled from UNDER a table scanned, and rescanned while election observers were not allowed to watch. Again I have to ask, if video of ballots being rescanned isn't a basis for an investigation... WHAT THE FCUK WOULD YOU DEFINE AS PROOF???

Remember that a hand recount of votes was done in Georgia and the results matched the machine output. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Analysis of the recount found falsified tally sheets, and the chain of custody documents are MISSING. (be sure to click on the links in the pdf because those images would be PROOF in my mind...I mean what would you call the falsified tally sheet? So election fraud committed twice is a real possibility.

Again, plenty of evidence of fraudulent activity... but you want PROOF before investigation...

And there's only one reason for that continued demand BEFORE an investigation and that's to forestall an investigation. I don't seem to recall Republicans preventing news organizations from reviewing the Bush-Gore ballots in Florida... which eventually validated Bush' win.

Wouldn't it be great if we allowed an investigation this time too? What if it validated Bidens win? wouldn't that be a good thing? What if it invalidated Bidens win? Would that be a good thing too or not?

That’s definitely NOT how courts work. At all. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

So you are saying there is no discovery process?


Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions.[2] Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.[3]

So you are saying there is no discovery process? Originally Posted by royamcr

Did I write that there’s no discovery process?

Then genius enlighten us on the whole process and at which point trump's bullshit gets laughed out of court.

It gets thrown out when the judge concludes his life, family, and everything he’s worked for is more valuable than letting the truth come out. At that point they act in self preservation, because we all know what happens when the modern left doesn’t get their way.

Then genius enlighten us on the whole process and at which point trump's bullshit gets laughed out of court. Originally Posted by royamcr

Name a single case that was allowed to proceed to discovery? There isn't one so far...they keep getting tossed on standing, which is a clever way to say, they don't want to address it. A political crime will not be solved through legal means... because if the crime is proven, there is no remedy...well short of a Constitutional crisis.

Don't stop him... he's busy digging a hole... Originally Posted by texassapper

yes, a very big one, like this.

So you are saying there is no discovery process?


Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions.[2] Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.[3] Originally Posted by royamcr

Then genius enlighten us on the whole process and at which point trump's bullshit gets laughed out of court. Originally Posted by royamcr

there was never a real discovery process in many of those cases. a lot of them were "standing" issues and cases were thrown out/dismissed as a result of the "standings" issue.

Name a single case that was allowed to proceed to discovery? There isn't one so far...they keep getting tossed on standing, which is a clever way to say, they don't want to address it. A political crime will not be solved through legal means... because if the crime is proven, there is no remedy...well short of a Constitutional crisis. Originally Posted by texassapper

actually, there was one. I think was in Wisconsin. this was about a voting machine issue with it's high error rate. a discovery hearing was scheduled to take place in april 2021. don't know the status of it.

Name a single case that was allowed to proceed to discovery? There isn't one so far...they keep getting tossed on standing, which is a clever way to say, they don't want to address it. A political crime will not be solved through legal means... because if the crime is proven, there is no remedy...well short of a Constitutional crisis. Originally Posted by texassapper

Takes evidence to get to Discovery.

From Reuters

According to the Washington Post, instead of alleging “widespread fraud or election-changing conspiracy” the lawsuits pushed by Trump’s team and allies focused on smaller complaints, which were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence. “The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”


LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.

Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: United Kingdom (34/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY




Washington Post is Left Center but still considered high credibility.

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that moderately favor the left. Due to two failed fact checks, they earn a Mostly Factual rating.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Define substantiated for me...

Well see you just changed the terms. There are allegations. Until those can be openly investigated and evidentiary hearings heard, there isn't "proof" per se. Democrats are fighting the investigation which might substantiate the allegations. Why? If there was no fraud, investigations would and should be welcomed because legitimate elections are in all citizens best interests. Civil strife only results when one side doubts the legitimacy of the election. Please explain how in normal counting processes the below occurs...



How do mail in ballots arrive before they are sent? There may be a perfectly logical explanation for it, but I have as yet to see any. instead all I've seen are people being banned who mention such things and screams of "Where is the proof?!" Well, let's investigate and determine the facts... but Democrats don't want to do that because FUCK YOU THAT'S WHY!

Again you want PROOF before allowing an investigation. Is that how criminal investigations work? I mean what would constitute PROOF prior to allowing an investigation?

There are sworn affidavits that there was election fraud... But you want PROOF before the investigation.

If this were a murder investigation, you'd have video evidence, sworn testimony, statistical data that points to the killer and yet you'd still be asking for PROOF prior to investigation and trial. Does that make a whole lot of sense?

There's FCUKING video of the boxes of ballots pulled from UNDER a table scanned, and rescanned while election observers were not allowed to watch. Again I have to ask, if video of ballots being rescanned isn't a basis for an investigation... WHAT THE FCUK WOULD YOU DEFINE AS PROOF???

Analysis of the recount found falsified tally sheets, and the chain of custody documents are MISSING. (be sure to click on the links in the pdf because those images would be PROOF in my mind...I mean what would you call the falsified tally sheet? So election fraud committed twice is a real possibility.

Again, plenty of evidence of fraudulent activity... but you want PROOF before investigation...

And there's only one reason for that continued demand BEFORE an investigation and that's to forestall an investigation. I don't seem to recall Republicans preventing news organizations from reviewing the Bush-Gore ballots in Florida... which eventually validated Bush' win.

Wouldn't it be great if we allowed an investigation this time too? What if it validated Bidens win? wouldn't that be a good thing? What if it invalidated Bidens win? Would that be a good thing too or not? Originally Posted by texassapper

I never said I required proof before an investigation. I have supported the audit in Arizona. Each charge of voter fraud should be investigated. Thus far every charge of voter fraud has been found to be incorrect after investigation. The charge of Dominion servers changing votes has been investigated and dismissed. There is no proof it happened. Charges of ballots being scanned multiple time have been investigated and dismissed. Your post mentions new allegations in Georgia. They should be investigated and explained.

"Substantiated" is a very easy word to define:

verb

provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

So again I ask you to give me what you believe to be voter fraud that occurred in the 2020 election in Arizona or Georgia, other than the new claims that have yet to be investigated.

Mike Lindell continues his claims that hackers broke into the computer systems in Georgia and changed votes to Biden. No one can substantiate that claim.

That is all I'm asking for. A claim of voter fraud that is substantiated.