abum

I'm going to take Kelli Ward at her word, which lemme tell ya, is a lot of credit.
 
So, taking Kelli Ward on her word, she did not say that "at least 1-2% of the Biden ballots have been tampered with" as you have said. She said that they were allowed to see a sample size of 100 replacement ballots. A replacement ballot is a ballot that has been mangled or damaged to the point that it cannot be read by the machines. Poll workers are allowed to take those damaged ballots and re-create them manually using a blank ballot, so that the machine can read them. Again, taking Ward at her word, 2 of those ballots that they audited were incorrectly reproduced. One ballot was switched from Trump to Biden, the other ballot she says "was just taken away from Trump," whatever that means.
 
So what she's referring to is 2% of the replacement ballots that they audited, not 2% of "Biden ballots" (as you said) and not 2% of all replacement ballots, and certainly not 2% of all ballots. And they weren't tampered with, as I explained. Were they done incorrectly by some malicious poll worker trying to fix an election? There is no evidence, or at least none that Ward has provided.
 
At best, you can extrapolate that 2% of the replacement ballots are incorrect. Not tampered with, not fraudulent. Incorrect. Is this a problem? Perhaps. It really depends on how many replacement ballots were created. If there were millions of replacement ballots, then yeah, it could be a problem. I suspect (always willing to be corrected with factual numbers) that the number is closer to the hundreds. If some malicious poll worker thought they could steal the vote by altering 2% of replacement ballots that number in the hundreds, or hell, even in the thousands, then that poll worker cannot math. And if there was malicious intent, I suspect very much that each replacement ballot is tracked back to the replacement worker who created them.
 
This kraken is an ex-kraken.
 
--
 
moxycorp is a subdivision of moxcorp. moxycorp: we do the research for you, because you won't

gee, Ducey failed to take a look at this "findings"  from the "investigation"?
 
Come on, bring the lawsuit. People are waiting for the evidence to be presented at the court, not on make believe hearing or twitter "cast". 
does this warrant a pardon?

He was embarrassed by his own behavior once: https://people.com/politics/rudy-giuliani-embarrassed-he-hired-james-comey/

End of year performance reviews are coming up, after all.

kinda funny that so far, a month after the election, no lawsuits managed to prove that there were
1. widespread fraud
2. even non-widespread fraud 
3. or if any of the above happening that could overturn an election.
 
now staunch supporter moved the goal posts again. and then claiming "something is a mess", but where is the evidence? why even after 1 month, no court cases had proved of such thing.
 
and they conveniently not want to talk about the same dumb claim of 2 million illegal voters back in 2016 - from the same guy, even after he won the election and his opponent quickly conceded. 
 
  

yeah that's the thing, in one of the threads here, there was a twitter post of so called "affidavit" trying to cast doubt on GA result - but even GA Sec of State, and even GA Gov (both are GOP), said no such evidence of fraud, and those who claimed to have the "affidavit" as a proof, never took it to court anyway. Why bother claiming you have any affidavit but had never made your case, unless this is just a ploy to continue grifting your supporters to donate, but it is quite damaging to the system that elected their Senate Majority, and other congress members. 
 
not sure what level of delusion these people are having. 

kinda funny that so far, a month after the election, no lawsuits managed to prove that there were
1. widespread fraud
2. even non-widespread fraud 
3. or if any of the above happening that could overturn an election.
 
now staunch supporter moved the goal posts again. and then claiming "something is a mess", but where is the evidence? why even after 1 month, no court cases had proved of such thing.
 
and they conveniently not want to talk about the same dumb claim of 2 million illegal voters back in 2016 - from the same guy, even after he won the election and his opponent quickly conceded. 
 
  

they cant, and they wont
 

What is the issue then if not fraud? 
 
 
What is the court of DOJ? If there is Federal law violated, prosecute. Overturning the election shouldn't impact law enforcement, it is independent of the election outcome.
 
There are no credible legal challenge(s). Nothing has come of any challenge.  This is about creating more havoc, confusion and funds.  It's past time to let go move on.
 
 

The contortions I'm witnessing to avoid actually having to agree that a) the Trump legal team never alleged widespread election fraud in court and b) the Trump-appointed Attorney General has said that he has found no evidence of widespread or election-altering fraud in the 2020 election is staggering.
 
In the face of all the evidence, if you're still denying the legitimate outcome of this election, and if you're hanging on "the AG said they haven't found fraud *yet*, you are the victim of a cult of personality. There is no fraud, the election wasn't stolen, Trump is the loser of this presidential election. Be an adult and seek help.

haha. i am interested to know @Cyberfx1024 's stand on False Story. i am surprised that he is not surprised at soooooo many false stories AGolf Twitler had ran with.
 
Widespread Fraud, Millions of Illegal votes came to mind. But still, AGolf Twitler wiuld have his support 😄

This is about the words Barr used. No + Widespread + Fraud. You choose to see it as national, you choose to say this "not about "fraud"."  If you think there was an opportunity to say "we found some cases of fraud and are pursuing those to the full extent of the law" he would have kept that under wraps?  No way. ,"Widespread"  is just a disclaimer for there may be a case out there that may popup later where a son filled in his mom's ballot and I don't want to get nailed because I said "no cases" 
 
 
Right now, Barr is just trying to pick up the tatters of his reputation and hope we forget all if the Unitary Executive BS he has been peddling since before 9/11.  Less than 9 Scaramucci's left till it's time to pack up the clown car. 
 
 
 

so on my post where i quoted the Associated Press, (so you have verbatim of what AP reported), you quoted a twitter thread sort of wanting to cast doubt on the news report, and even in the twitter thread, it stated "That is not what the Associated Press reported" but how does that relate to the AP report i shared here?
 
 

is this gonna be like one of the twitter threads posted here that, once countered, you wont admit to quoting baseless twitter threads ?  

i hope you had read the LINK and the QUOTES that I posted here, on this initial post. 

because you might be surprised, that IT WAS FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS .. tadaaaaaaaaaa.  
 



 
So what "absolute mess" are you talking about? 

so which lawsuit is it that is going to use that "evidence" from this Tim?
 
a lot of people are waiting in anticipation. 

it is always the Deep State at work. even after 4 years and hiring only the best people
saw the headline but had not had the chance to read the story

Next: "Barr is practicing law on his own" "I wish him the very best"  aaaaaaand off you go 
 
to twitter meltdown? 

so which lawsuit is it that is going to use that "evidence" from this Tim?
 
a lot of people are waiting in anticipation. 

it is always the Deep State at work. even after 4 years and hiring only the best people
saw the headline but had not had the chance to read the story

it is always the Deep State at work. even after 4 years and hiring only the best people
saw the headline but had not had the chance to read the story

this is what we called SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY as well as STRAWMAN FALLACY.  

Next: "Barr is practicing law on his own" "I wish him the very best"  aaaaaaand off you go 
 
to twitter meltdown? 

I heard Trump doesn't even know who Barr is, he just came in to make the coffee a few times.