Posted on 01/25/2021 1:00:04 PM PST by Stayfree
BFLR
I agree with your post.
The focus should be on how to address this voting by mail issue to help give confidence to the next vote.
There most certainly is evidence of voter irregularities, voter fraud. No one can deny that. It’s nothing new however. To any who breathlessly claim it about 2020’s election, I’d ask, in the words of John McClain, “welcome to the party pal!”
The real question is, were such irregularities, such “fraud” ENOUGH to overturn the election results? I respectfully submit, just as in previous cycles, it’s not enough. More on this (perhaps) coming in a separate post. I’m still composing it, and considering if it’s worth posting on FR in the first place.
But this shouldn’t be shocking, or “news” to anyone following along for the last 50 years. Of course there are “irregularities” and “fraud” in this election. Just like in every election in recent memory. Nothing really new there.
For a foretaste of why, again, I do not believe there is enough evidence to assert that the election was “stolen” see the following Twitter thread I’ve posted before in recent days/weeks. Does it disprove all allegations of fraud? No. But again, for anyone following along the last 40-50 years, not really much surprising, not really much of a “bombshell” to generally claim “election fraud”. Again, that’s already known. And a fact. The only question to really ask is: is such fraud ENOUGH to have overturned 2020?
https://twitter.com/JonathanTCasey/status/1342303141975515136?s=20
And speaking of Mr. Navarro specifically, one must note the footnotes 36, 49 and 52 in his first installment “The Immaculate Deception”. Readable here: https://www.thethinkingconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
The careful researcher will note that they point to court cases where, since the publishing of that first installment, such evidence was examined by the courts, “evidence” detailed in those footnotes, and found to be lacking.
Again, I’m still considering detailing this in a separate thread. But if one wishes, for now, it’s relatively easy to see this for oneself with minimal effort I’d say.
Specifically:
“Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint could be brought under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521, it also fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is based on the premise that the
election is in doubt because the voter rolls were not properly maintained, and because election
officials did not properly verify voter signatures. Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual
allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on
SPECULATION rather than DULY PLED FACTS. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest.” (emphasis added)
Response to footnote 36 of “The Immaculate Deception”. You can read it here: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/2020.12.8-Final-Order-Granting-MTDs-2020CV343018-Boland-v.-Raffensperger-et-al.-KH623927x9D7F4.pdf
(note, the same site, Democracy Docket, is the same one that Mr. Navarro uses in this footnotes 36 and 49, so yes, it’s a leftist website, but Peter Navarro didn’t have any problem citing it in his footnotes. Ask yourself “why” if you now doubt the veracity of Democracy Docket)
It’s a matter of law. The RULE of LAW. Do “we” (those on FR) support the “rule of law” or not?
Just posting this as, again, a foretaste. A sampling of what I’ve personally found. From what I’ve found, there are two categories:
1. That direct evidence (affidavits, statistical analyses etc) was found to be lacking (because the affidafits are “hearsay” or “expert testimony” based on “experts” that lack proper credentials). Or …
2. That a case, or case(s) was/were thrown out because of “lack of standing” or “laches” HOWEVER, one must realize that when that did occur, that is the ORIGINAL reason such a case was brought in the first place, ie, not based on “evidence” but on an argument of the law (so what’s the court supposed to do, consider evidence NOT brought?)
Again, I’m still examining this myself, still considering if it’s worth posting to FR as a separate thread. But from what I continue to find, I’m not finding much to believe the “election was stolen”, at least not enough to reasonably believe the results should have been overturned.
How in the hell can you find fraud WITHOUT audits, of course you don’t know about the fraud NO ONE would let there be an audit!!
I’m sorry I don’t know what you mean by “without audits”. Please elaborate.
Thanks. Saving to read later.
Later
p
I agree. Saw counting stop in swing state’s election night with Trump holding the lead. Get up the morning of the 4th to hear about massive vote dumps in the middle of the night for Biden. Ballots and machines should have been seized by federal marshals for immediate audits. Vote fraud, troops occupying DC, Biden ruling by executive decree. Surreal.
Moot and pointless.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would agree with you BUT for the fact this report will function as a foundation of many of the upcoming activities we will see from the “Office of The Former President of the United States.”
President Trump is about to go active once again.
And I and 75 million others support our legitimate President.
I like the way all the supporting documents are appended but I wish they were clickable and that he had links to Volume 1 & 2.
If the reports with their appended documents were in one pdf somewhere it would be easier to distribute when people started claiming: “No evidence — no evidence”.
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.