• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
They may well be in the affidavits that the Trump campaign released. I am listening to the audio of the interrogation of the postal worker. As fascinating as this is I'm not on this full time. I only said that Giuliani was claiming he had massively more witnesses that posters in this thread were saying. He clearly is. He was clearly claiming 50-60 a few days ago. I didn't claim to have personally spoken to any of the witnesses, background checked them, or confirmed their inside leg measurements.
Click to expand...
You made the claim it was 70, all I am asking you in this post is to provide the source for your claim of 70.
 
CORed said:
After listening to that, it's probably not correct to say he recanted. It's also pretty clear that the Veritas lawyers wrote the affidavit for him in a manner that claimed much more than he actually witnessed. While I would say that, if his claim that the supervisors had the ballots separated from the regular mail is true, it raises suspicion, he has no direct evidence that any ballots were actually backdated. His claims certainly warrant further investigation, but unless corroborated by other witnesses and absent actual direct evidence of backdating, it's nothing.
Click to expand...

Why? I don't know if its the same jurisdiction, but at one point a judge ordered ballots to be swept up.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A) why do you regard it as bad?
Click to expand...
Because it runs just like a video I saw of why you never talk to police without a lawyer.

BobTheCoward said:
B) why do you feel the second affidavit doesn't recant the first?
Click to expand...
There are all different kinds of lie. He was pressured into signing a new affidavit that was full of equivocation that was not in the story he told them at the beginning and came after an hour and a half of them pushing him and pushing him to weaken his story. The second affidavit is making the same basic claim as the first one. Claiming he withdrew his affidavit without saying that he signed a new one that ledged essentially the same story after an hour and a half of pressure is a lie of omission.

So here you have ever reliable and honest WAPO saying that he admitted to fabricating the allegations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...269a7c-2364-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html

Unless there is some other interview where he also retracted this second affidavit this is a huge lie by either the normally reliable "unnamed sources" or WAPO.
 
Darat said:
You made the claim it was 70, all I am asking you in this post is to provide the source for your claim of 70.
Click to expand...
I explained that to you already Darat. I said a number had been claimed. I've proved that at least "50-60" were being claimed by Giuliani a few days ago. If I come across a direct quote or video of Giuliani saying 70, I'll post it.... I told you where I got the 70 from. I'm not digging through hours of video to evidence 70 when I have evidenced 60.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
I take it Twitter is fact checking them all when they call him President elect?
Click to expand...

Why would Twitter fact-check them (the media) when all they're doing is calling the election as they see it, and Biden as they see him, with no imputation on their part that it's in any way an official, Constitutional call?

And "president-elect" is really kind of an informal title (Wikipedia):

The president-elect of the United States is the person who conclusively appears to have won a presidential election in the United States but has yet to take office as President.

While Election Day is held in early November, the formal voting by the members of the Electoral College takes place in mid-December, and the presidential inauguration (at which the oath of office is taken) is then usually held on January 20. The only constitutional provision pertaining directly to the person who has won the presidential election is their availability to take the oath of office. There is no indication when that person actually becomes president-elect.
Click to expand...
It's true that the General Services Administration is empowered "to determine who the apparent election winner is and to help facilitate the basic functioning of the president-elect's transition team"- but that's pretty obviously just saying that for that purpose only (allocation of federal resources to transition teams), the GSA can make their determination. Because, you know (hold on to your hats), the GSA doesn't get to pick the President either.

Joe Biden is, properly, the President-elect...until you guys come across with that mountain of evidence you'll need to overturn his status. :rolleyes: Then he won't be, and you can bitch to Twitter about uneven fact-checking. Because that's important (:rolleyes: again)
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
Why would Twitter fact-check them (the media) when all they're doing is calling the election as they see it, and Biden as they see him, with no imputation on their part that it's in any way an official, Constitutional call?
Click to expand...
You are right, Twitter definitely aren't in the business of fact checking such things when they come from people and opinions they want to boost.
 
johnny karate said:
If his original affidavit was falsified, what specifically needs to be investigated?
Click to expand...
Because it wasn't falsified, that's a lie being put out to discredit him. It may be strongly stated, but he makes it clear that he believed backdating was going on, believes he heard backdating being discussed (just not using the word backdating) and that the ballots were handled in a way that he did not believe was the proper process. The agents who interview him confirm, though they could well be lying, that there will be an investigation.

Also, he is standing by his story and saying that claims of a retraction are a lie.

Personally, I think there should be an investigation of the USPS handling of this. Just from a labour point of view, handling a whistle blower like this is appalling.
 
turingtest said:
You sound peeved. Gosh, that's a sad sound, like a snowflake melting. Drip, drip, drip...
Click to expand...
Not peeved. I enjoy the thread. Reading up on this without some back and forth would be dull. We are living through the most interesting year that there has been since the war. Nothing we do here is going to change anything anyway :-) You guys do get me to rethink things from time to time, so there is value in it.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
You sound peeved. Gosh, that's a sad sound, like a snowflake melting. Drip, drip, drip...
Click to expand...

Well, in his defense it can feel like you're being dogpiled on when you're the only one trying to keep a failing conspiracy theory alive while everyone else just keeps on pointing out false claim after flaw after failure. I imagine if I was trying to convince a room full of people using critical thinking that an obviously BS story told by known fraudsters could just be true, hear them out, I'd get testy too.
 
So far the whole thing is hinged on the word of Giuliani and Project Veritas. Couldn’t be in better, smarter, more capable hands.
 
shuttlt said:
Because it runs just like a video I saw of why you never talk to police without a lawyer.


There are all different kinds of lie. He was pressured into signing a new affidavit that was full of equivocation that was not in the story he told them at the beginning and came after an hour and a half of them pushing him and pushing him to weaken his story. The second affidavit is making the same basic claim as the first one. Claiming he withdrew his affidavit without saying that he signed a new one that ledged essentially the same story after an hour and a half of pressure is a lie of omission.

So here you have ever reliable and honest WAPO saying that he admitted to fabricating the allegations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...269a7c-2364-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html

Unless there is some other interview where he also retracted this second affidavit this is a huge lie by either the normally reliable "unnamed sources" or WAPO.
Click to expand...

Information provided by Project Veritas and your interpretation of it are both highly suspect.

And speaking of lies by omission, here’s an actual one: You failed to mention in your breathless blow-by-blow that Project Veritas falsified the original affidavit.
 
johnny karate said:
Information provided by Project Veritas and your interpretation of it are both highly suspect.

And speaking of lies by omission, here’s an actual one: You failed to mention in your breathless blow-by-blow that Project Veritas falsified the original affidavit.
Click to expand...
Who says they falsified the affidavit? The whistleblower seems to be siding with them.
 
ServiceSoon said:
Florida woman charged with falsifying absentee signature and found with 31 completed absentee ballots. Link to arrest warrant.
Click to expand...


shuttlt said:
Debunked:
The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html

They are the paper of record, so they must be being honest.
Click to expand...

Funny....that same exact story ran in 2012:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deis...Uqf1CPjLxsRP82zjr1PYKau-d0snly7As3UakorJ6RMDN

ETA: It took me about one minute to find that. You'd think people would do at least the minimum research before embarrassing themselves.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom