Do you think the last election was stolen?
Now it has come out that they were using the FBI to censor damaging information on the Biden family on Facebook. Now, Zuckerburg has come out saying what they were doing was wrong.
shareyeah
share
MovieChat Forums > Politics > Do you think the last election was stole...
Yes, It happened before our eyes 👀.
Testimony-Senate-Binnall-2020-12-16
https://www.carsonnow.org/story/12/09/2020/nevada-supreme-court-denies-trump-campaign-lawsuit-seeking-overturn-presidential-el
Struck down by Nevada. What is it you found so fundamentally compelling here exactly?
The Nevada Supreme court's decision to not overturn the election doesn't change the facts of all the fraud and irregularities found.
shareWhat facts specifically? He was unable to support his claims.
shareDid you bother to read the testimony?
shareDid you read the response from Judge James Russell, and the court?
shareYes, he dismissed the appeal since he rejected the evidence.
He didn't accept the evidence just like the other lawsuits except the 24 where they prevailed.
>Yes, he dismissed the appeal since he rejected the evidence.
And why did he reject it? Just for no reason or did he give explanations as to why it wasn't sufficient?
>He didn't accept the evidence just like the other lawsuits except the 24 where they prevailed.
And what did they prevail in specifically? What did the Trump campaign somehow win in those lawsuits?
And why did he reject it?
For the same reason they dismissed those other cases: "lacked standing" share
This just isn't true.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/05/fact-check-viral-post-makes-false-claims-nevadas-election/4392902001/
The reasons for the claims being rejected are spelled out here.
Another Fact Checker.
Fact Checkers = Misinformation and Disinformation
What's the misinformation there?
shareThey are nothing but "opinions." They don't prove nor disprove anything.
Their external sources are from other propaganda websites, biased articles/reviews and from establishment funded shills.
>They are nothing but "opinions." They don't prove nor disprove anything.
They are literally giving the reasons that James Russell gave for rejecting the suit.
And no, many of them do not remotely just give opinions. They source their responses. You still have not given me a single example of misinformation on the page.
Because you are not capable of doing so, because you are a partisan hack who just believes Trump and his representatives no matter what they say, and automatically rejects any counter-argument no matter what it is.
Bingo!Give up on this guy. He’s so radicalized he sleeps underground
shareNothing on that page or their propaganda sources refutes the information of the testimony, nothing.
The same can be said about your cult-like blind devotion to the establishment that you believe fact checkers are facts.
Fact Checkers are partisan hack hit pieces for the brainwashed gullible imbeciles.
>Nothing on that page or their propaganda sources refutes the information of the testimony, nothing.
So you claim. You refuse to provide any arguments or specifics relating to this. Why should I trust you over them? Why should I trust Jesse Binnall over James Russell?
>The same can be said about your cult-like blind devotion to the establishment that you believe fact checkers are facts.
You still haven't given a single example of misinformation from any fact-checker ever.
Did you read their rating and explanation near the bottom?
The entire fact checker, their sources and their research are based on a failed lawsuit where “the evidence” was rejected since it was never accepted due to “lacked standing.”
That's the Mis/Dis-information of your precious Fact Checker.
>The entire fact checker, their sources and their research are based on a failed lawsuit where “the evidence” was rejected since it was never accepted due to “lacked standing.”
....Did you read that properly?
The claim: Nevada's presidential election included duplicate voting, dead voters, fake addresses, noncitizens voting and out of state voters
-insert details here-
Our rating: False
The claim that Nevada's 2020 presidential election included cases of duplicate voting, dead voters, fake addresses and noncitizens voting is FALSE, based on our research. The claims in the post are based on a failed lawsuit where a district court found that no illegal votes were cast and counted or that any legal votes were not counted. Biden won Nevada's six electoral votes and those results were finalized by Congress.
It's claiming the Trumps campaign claims of fraud in Nevada were false. Based on the many arguments from the Nevadan supreme court as to why.
Yes, it was all based on the rejected evidence from the court(s) due to lacked standing.
They don't mention lacked standing since it would reveal that their research and conclusion was bullshit.
It was an opinionated propaganda hit piece. Nothing was refuted.
>Yes, it was all based on the rejected evidence from the court(s) due to lacked standing.
The court said much more than that.
Claim: 42,000 Nevadans voted more than once
The claim that 42,000 people voted more than once in Nevada is false. The allegation originates from testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee presented by Trump campaign attorney Jesse Binnall.
The evidence for Binnall's claims was not shown publicly and was partially obtained through Department of Motor Vehicle records, according to 8 News now.
Derek T. Muller, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law, analyzed the origins of Binnall's 42,000 figure and found that the claim stemmed from a report by the Republican National Committee's chief data officer, Jesse Kamzol. The report lacked overall methodology and underlying data.
---
Claim: 19,000 voters didn't live in Nevada
Similar to the social media post, Binnall also claimed in his testimony that 19,000 people voted even though they did not live in Nevada, not including military voters or students. He wrote that the voters were identified by comparing lists of voters with the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address database.
In regards to the allegation that out-of-state residents voted in Nevada, Russell wrote there is no evidence to "support a finding that election officials counted mail ballots from voters who also voted in other states."
---
Claim: 15,000 votes cast from commercial addresses; 8,000 from nonexistent addresses
Claims that Nevada voters were registered at commercial addresses and nonexistent addresses are false and again originate from Binnall's testimony in the Trump campaign's case.
Binnall claimed that experts purportedly found 15,000 votes cast from commercial or vacant addresses by analyzing U.S. Postal Service records that flag nonresidential addresses and addresses vacant for more than 90 days. The 8,000 voters with nonexistent addresses were allegedly found by cross referencing voters with the Coding Accuracy Support System.
However, the court found no evidence to support claims that "election officials counted ballots from voters who did not meet Nevada residency requirements."
In his ruling, Russell further wrote that the Postal Service did not deliver mail-in ballots to "addresses where the addressee of the ballot was known to be deceased, known to have moved from that address, or had no affiliation with that address at all."
----
>They don't mention lacked standing since it would reveal that their research and conclusion was bullshit.
What research was the Trump campaign drawing from exactly?
All those claims were based on actual evidence which was rejected; reason (lacked standing).
Did the court/judge accept and review the actual evidence? NO.
The FC attacks the claims based on the failed lawsuit(s) due to the "dismissal" and lacked standing since "the evidence" was never entered into the case because it was "rejected."
>All those claims were based on actual evidence which was rejected; reason (lacked standing).
If the evidence was rejected as being insufficient or unsupported or contradicted, then the evidence wasn't evidence at all (per the courts position). Why should I regard the court as wrong, but Trumps lawyer right? You have failed to answer this.
>The FC attacks the claims based on the failed lawsuit(s) due to the "dismissal" and lacked standing since "the evidence" was never entered into the case because it was "rejected."
The judge specifically scrutinises the supposed evidence. Why is this?
Clearly each claim has been looked into, and found wanting. Why is this?
It wasn’t rejected by all of them since they prevailed in 24 of the cases. This proves that there was fraud and irregularities based on the evidence.
shareDid those 24 cases have anything specifically to do with the Nevada case?
And as I've asked you: What did they prevail in specifically? What did the Trump campaign somehow win in those lawsuits?
Yes, six are for Nevada but Trump/GOP prevailed in two of the six.
The disposition of the other four were “dismissed due to lacked standing and jurisdiction” with ruling favored (Case Not Fully Heard), Status (Closed).
The prevailing is different based on “disposition” and the “ruling favored.”
>Yes, six are for Nevada but Trump/GOP prevailed in two of the six.
What two cases are those? What did they win in those lawsuits?
No evidence that would change the outcome of the election. There's always some voting fraud.
shareExcept that there was mass voting fraud in the key states and three of the 93 cases are still "active."
shareNo, there has been no cumulative evidence across various cases of mass voting fraud in any key states, and any levels of discrepencies or fraud identified anywhere would not have changed any result.
shareAnother total failure of Skavau to gaslight on the behalf of the regime 🤦🏻♂️
shareAnd you will be unable to explain how I have failed anything here. Or what gaslighting has occured.
shareThere’s nothing to explain, it’s right there for all to see. Idiot.
Now write some pathetic defensive nonsense to try and distract from your stupidity. Go…
Anyone could say anything to me and you'd congratulate them and say I'd failed.
Total Scientology tactics.
>Now write some pathetic defensive nonsense to try and distract from your stupidity. Go…
Stupidity that you can't remotely name because you simply reply by rote now. The content of what I've said to you has long ceased mattering.
You take on total Scientology tactics.
‘Think’? It very clearly was and everyone knows it, including all the Leftists constantly trying to gaslight the far more intelligent general public into thinking it wasn’t.
No. Nothing new here, except that Zuckerberg said that what HE did was wrong.
And really, everybody heard about this story that was supposedly suppressed. And it STILL has nothing to do with President Biden.
No, you dumb motherfuckers. How many fucking times are you gonna fucking ask this stupid fucking question?
shareYes, it was stolen and before the liberals, most of which I have on ignore, begin crying about "WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE??" Look no further than the corrupt FBI
shareYes the election was 100% stolen. Every state where Trump was leading on election night had a huge dump of votes overnight and in the morning, he was trailing in each of those states.
sharehttps://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1821687393331671488
Plus this.
Roger Alejandro Pinate Martinez, 49, a Venezuelan citizen and resident of Boca Raton, Florida who also happens to be the President of the SMARTMATIC election machine company was just indicted by the DOJ!
You’ll see the DOJ conveniently left out the fact that Martinez is the President of Smartmatic, which was at the center of the stolen 2020 election controversy.