Posted on 03/03/2022 11:30:45 AM PST by grundle
This is a New York Times article that was published on March 1, 2022. The article is called, “Wisconsin Republicans’ Election Report Endorses Debunked Legal Theories.”
The New York Times article starts out by saying: (the bolding is mine)
“A Republican report on the 2020 election in Wisconsin endorsed a host of debunked claims of fraud”
Note the word “debunked.”
The New York Times article includes this link to the report.
The report is dated March 1, 2022.
The report is 136 pages long.
How can the New York Times possibly read and “debunk” a 136 page report on voter fraud, all on the same day that the report was published?
On page 90 of the report, it cites a bunch of nursing homes in Wisconsin where the voter turnout was between 95% and 100%. Here’s an image of that:
Here’s a video about the report. We see that evil, scumbag, immoral, corrupt, lawbreaking Democrats took advantage of nursing home patients who were not capable of moving, getting out of bed, voting, speaking, or requesting an absentee ballot. Even their own relatives are saying that these patients were not physically capable of voting or requesting an absentee ballot. And yet, somehow, these people allegedly managed to vote:
The New York Times article makes no mention whatsoever regarding these claims about the nursing homes having voter turnout between 95% and 100%, or about people who allegedly voted even though they were too sick to move, get out of bed, vote, speak, or request an absentee ballot.
In fact, across the entire internet, I cannot find even one “debunking” of the specific claim that these nursing homes had voter turnout rates between 95% and 100%, or that people voted even though they were too sick to move, get out of bed, vote, speak, or request an absentee ballot.
And yet the New York Times has the nerve to say the claims in the report have been “debunked.”
Even since the election, the mainstream media has been “debunking” claims of voter fraud, without actually mentioning what those specific claims are. And this is a great example of that.
You can read about a lot more specific claims of voter fraud that have not been debunked at this link.
Evelyn Woodhead speed reading for libtards 🤪
Do you really want to know?
They split it up between four or five reporters who take notes and it’s then compiled by the lead reporter.
Or, didn’t you want to know?
As soon as the RATs say, write, whisper, sign (ASL) or otherwise communicate the word “debunked” you know they are lying! They haven’t “debunked” anything, they just don’t have a legitimate response.
They can do it because that is what the prog playbook says to do.
They don't have any actual thought process nor do they have any fragment of morals left.
They just look up the issue in the Party Approved Response list and print what it says there.
.
jeffrey epstein was debunked.
How? Simple answer: They didn’t read it.
Some things never change.
How? Because they’re paid off traitors. And should be held accountable...
Whistling past the graveyard.
Are you saying the vaunted NYSlimes would make chit up and or publish half truths or less?
Nonsense:-)
This propaganda piece was written weeks ago.
They can say debunked all they want. The numbers will tell the story.
When I was a young college student, I worked at a group home for disabled adults. On election day, the two liberal females I worked with would take them to the polls to "exercise their voting rights". One at a time, the women would take the clients into the booth and vote for them. Not one of these clients had the slightest hint of who they were voting for or what voting even means.
“Whistling past the graveyard.”
Things you can also whistle past graveyards (where a lot of Chicago votes come from, LOL):
Election Fraud Evidence
Presidential Coup attempt by a political Party
Phony Dossier
Phony Mueller Investigation (AG’s buddy)
Country’s Intelligence Service use a Political Weapon
Phony Impeachments
Corrupt Media in conjunction with a political party
FBI Spying the on President
Weaponized DOJ that goes after political enemies
DOJ that will not prosecute crimes against one party
Silence on Facebook’s $440,000,000 election funded to support the steal
Big Tech Censorship
Judicial System afraid to tackle fraud
etc...
Because even if it the audit was a 100% fabrication for sake of argument, that doesn’t even matter to the NYT - because it was narrative pre-written regardless of what the investigation showed.
Either this massive turnout in nursing homes occurred, or it did not. If it did, “how is that even possible?” is the question that is to be explored and whether it was fraud is the next question. If it didn’t occur, that’s a “debunking”, but did the NYT even investigate this?
They dont expect many people to read past the headlines at this point.
Because the NYT had the rebuttal to the finding already written weeks before the findings were published.
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.