Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Massive Voter Fraud


Cookie Monster
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, and then said:

The evidence will be presented in a court of law.  It isn't going to be dribbled out, piecemeal so that an adversarial media can propagandize against it.  Have you done any research into the claims of wrongdoing?  Just a few of the sworn statements - some machines were connected to the internet.  In one state 1.5 million voters were registered and eligible but an additional 700 thousand votes were cast.  The security and chain of custody that was in place to prove the ballots were legitimate were regularly ignored and observers weren't allowed to see the ballots while they were still in their cover envelopes.  There are many more instances of how this steal was executed.  Those Americans who are ignoring the data and the sworn statements are going to find that in the long term, they've been complicit with destroying faith in our most fundamental bond. 

 

Seriously? You're saying the claim is that in one state the number of votes cast was 45% greater than the number of registered voters?

And this has somehow gone unnoticed and unchallenged until now?

You don't think that such an extraordinary claim is going to require pretty extraordinary supporting evidence? Have you, perhaps, looked at fact-checking of the claim to see how it stacks up? Or is it simply good enough for you that the claim has been made?

ETA: And this has gone undetected by the investigators sent in by the Attorney General? Or is he in on the fix now?

Edited by Peter B
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

Seriously? You're saying the claim is that in one state the number of votes cast was 45% greater than the number of registered voters?

And this has somehow gone unnoticed and unchallenged until now?

You don't think that such an extraordinary claim is going to require pretty extraordinary supporting evidence? Have you, perhaps, looked at fact-checking of the claim to see how it stacks up? Or is it simply good enough for you that the claim has been made?

ETA: And this has gone undetected by the investigators sent in by the Attorney General? Or is he in on the fix now?

The delusion with these people is incredible.   It doesn't help that they're following a delusional man. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing out in Pennsylvania for the 2020 election 2,629,672 mail in ballots were cast and only 7,411 ballots rejected.  In 2018 mail in ballots was around 229,875 mail in ballots cast with 8,714 ballots rejected.  

The drastic reduction in vote rejection seems to be from laxed mail in ballot requirements which will probably go before the Supreme Court and more then likely in this case they would rule in favor of Trump as Bush v Gore already settled this matter.  Basically the Supreme Court ruled that all ballots from a state have to be treated the same, since in person voting required a signature check while mail in ballots didnt that is going to cause a bit of a problem.  

If the rate of rejected ballots was consistent in PA then close to 100,000 ballots would of been rejected.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, HSlim said:

....You mean like the 31+ lawsuits that have already been dismissed due to lack of evidence?  Sit down and take your L like an adult. 

You mean like you folks did in 2016?  Like that?  Nah, I don't think so.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

You mean like you folks did in 2016?  Like that?  Nah, I don't think so.

You're aware that we impeached Trump......right?   And you're also aware that Mueller specifically said that he could not indict a sitting president, but did list out multiple examples of obstruction, and did not rule out the possibility of sealed indictments?  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HSlim said:

You're aware that we impeached Trump......right?   And you're also aware that Mueller specifically said that he could not indict a sitting president, but did list out multiple examples of obstruction, and did not rule out the possibility of sealed indictments?  

Yeah, I'm also aware that he was acquitted.  If your next response is about that result being politicized, don't bother.  Impeachment is by its very nature, political.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HSlim said:

Would you like to use any reputable sources?   Either way, PA already tossed Trump's lawsuit..... with prejudice. 

You should probably refresh your memory of the Supremacy Clause.  PA judges can toss stuff out as often as they like but when SCOTUS takes a look, you may find that some p***ed in your Wheaties ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

Yeah, I'm also aware that he was acquitted.  If your next response is about that result being politicized, don't bother.  Impeachment is by its very nature, political.  

He was acquitted, yet still impeached.  And of course it was politicized.... you know, like how the Senate refused to listen to testimony and how Lindsey Graham said before the proceedings even started that he'd already made up his mind?   I'm waiting to see how much harder you can reach trying to find reasons to invalidate the vote. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

You should probably refresh your memory of the Supremacy Clause.  PA judges can toss stuff out as often as they like but when SCOTUS takes a look, you may find that some p***ed in your Wheaties ;) 

Yeah, good luck getting this to the SCOTUS.  You actually think the SCOTUS is just going to hand over the election to Trump?  Bless your heart.   I really hope you come to terms with reality soon, take your loss like an adult, maybe re-evaluate the types of things you stood for over the last few years, and strive hard not to be so gullible from now on. 

Edited by HSlim
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, and then said:

You should probably refresh your memory of the Supremacy Clause.  PA judges can toss stuff out as often as they like but when SCOTUS takes a look, you may find that some p***ed in your Wheaties ;) 

Sure, they are ignoring how state court judgements can be appealed all the way to the SC.

A SC Trump wisely packed with Republican Judges knowing what corruption was coming.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

its over Ravenhawk - its going no where, not even going to make it to the Supreme Court

It may be over but it’s Trump’s prerogative to carry it out till the bitter end.  Trump is a fighter; you can’t expect any less.  Oh, it will make it to the Supreme Court.  Giuliani is building a case of bias in the lower courts.  The stats supports the case and there are hundreds of affidavits and the lower courts ignore all of that?  Trump will need to flip 3 states of the 6 in question.  I can see two flipping but that’s it.  Everyone knows that there was cheating but that’s hard to prove even with the fact that the Left was so sloppy at trying to conceal the crime.  This will affect elections to come.  Not sure how yet??

 

As Barr says no evidence of systemic fraud - all else if it exists is local twaddle. 

That doesn’t mean much.  What is interesting is that Barr went silent right before the election and Durham has disappeared.  What did they discover?  Who silenced them?  I sense that there is corruption here too.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Sure, they are ignoring how state court judgements can be appealed all the way to the SC.

A SC Trump wisely packed with Republican Judges knowing what corruption was coming.

Odd that Trump appointed judges are also the ones dismissing his cases :ph34r:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

Do you have a source that disproves the claims?  There are MANY such claims coming from a very diverse group of witnesses in those states.  And if common sense doesn't impress you, perhaps you should just consider the hell-raising you people did for 4 years with NO EVIDENCE because you believed the Media lies.  If if tens of millions of people believe he's being cheated, this country has a problem...ALL of us, have a problem.

This morning I guess that would be AG Barre.

Andthen,  claims are only claims.  Rudy can say anything he wants, it is his show.

Many claims, so many claims, so little evidence.  Common sense does impress me, lets use it.  If Rudy can appear before a judge and present evidence, well and good.  The standard for evidence is cross examination in court and open trial notes for public scrutiny.  

Now there is a perfect justification for your actions.  You TDS guys were stupid, destructive, gullible idiots, (with NO EVIDENCE you say )   There seemed to be enough evidence to indict, try, and convict half a dozen members of Trump's campaign staff.  If you even had that much evidence, the cases would not be thrown out of court.   So now it is Trump's turn to wreck the country. 

Yes it is a problem. If you want to deal in facts, it might be resolved

If you want to make a faith-based religion out of it,  no logical articles or investigations will prevail.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Enough with the flame-baiting and derogatory personal remarks please folks.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

That is true, but reason and logic would win out. 

Excellent, lets try that.

Basic math, a million times zero is still zero.  Evidence is true of false, it doesn't add incrementally.

OR 

If a billion people submit heart felt testimony that socialism, communism, and Chinese state run capitalism  are ideal ways for people to live, will you be convinced by sheer numbers and statistics that you have been wrong all this time?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

You need to add the word Allegedly to the end of each of your sentences. 

And the words "I imagine" to the beginning of all his posts.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That doesn’t mean much.  What is interesting is that Barr went silent right before the election and Durham has disappeared.  What did they discover?  Who silenced them?  I sense that there is corruption here too.

Or they silenced themselves because found nothing.  Durham just got appointed special prosecutor I believe, he did not disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, and then said:

You mean like you folks did in 2016?  Like that?  Nah, I don't think so.

Razing the bar, eh?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Odd that Trump appointed judges are also the ones dismissing his cases :ph34r:

 

I will be interested to see what Trump has to say about Barr's comments..

I seem to remember another AG let him down - Jeff Sessions - when he recused himself at the beginning of the Russian Collusion thing -

I think what has happened is that the Swamp has so deeply infiltrated all the institutions of power that Trump get's conned by deeply imbedded ones... ... he's been batting them away for the last 4 years... as they swim around the corridors of power waiting for a chance to betray him - 

and also many people in positions of power could be 'Epsteined' if they step out of line .... and be controlled in that way... 

not saying either of those options (swamp or blackmail) definitely applies to Barr - but that's why I want to hear what Trump has to say about it...

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 

That doesn’t mean much.  What is interesting is that Barr went silent right before the election and Durham has disappeared.  What did they discover?  Who silenced them?  I sense that there is corruption here too.

 

 

I wrote my previous post before I saw this....

Let's see what Trump has to say about it... (Barr's comments)....

God only knows he (Trump) has been under such sustained and vicious attack 24/7 for years... I don't suppose anything would surprise him now when it comes to betrayal...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bee said:

I will be interested to see what Trump has to say about Barr's comments..

I seem to remember another AG let him down - Jeff Sessions - when he recused himself at the beginning of the Russian Collusion thing -

Maybe Trump values personal loyalty above the law and Constitution.  Sessions and Barr actually believed they had a duty to the US and not a personal duty to Trump alone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

The evidence will be presented in a court of law.  It isn't going to be dribbled out, piecemeal so that an adversarial media can propagandize against it. 

 

during the Russia Collusion Hoax the way they got the 'talking points' out to the MSM was through leaks (or covert ''''wire tapping''') and that's why day after day there were anonymous reports from..... 'those familiar with the matter'.....' those in a position to know'..... 'sources connected to the events'.... etc etc...

looks like there are not so many leaks or buggings going on with the Giuliani and Powell legal teams.....
or  a negative angle is harder to apply because it would be mean actually appearing to take the evidence of Election Fraud seriously... so a wall of silence is preferred by the 'enemy of the people'........?

 

Edited by bee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and then said:

If they truly believe the election was secure and no significant fraud occurred then they should be happy to have investigations that PROVE they are correct.  Instead, we are seeing them rush to reset/erase data from servers in GA.  In Fulton County, where the city of Atlanta sits.  Legally, since those votes were in question, once the ability to use forensics has been denied, those votes should be thrown out as untrustworthy.  

This steal is not going to be allowed to stand.

 

bolded.... good point....

if they could put the whole Election Rigging Matter to bed by being open and cooperative then you would think they would...

IF

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.