AG Garland will investigate the State election audits

[Care4all]

What have the ninja boys found? What's there to be afraid of....? Can anyone show any physical evidence that trump got more votes than biden?

I'm not looking for any could have, or may haves or speculations, just real evidence.... Thanks in advance!

 

[candycorn]

Bad move by the AG...

I don't see that anyone is breaking laws with these frivilous audits.

You didn't see that AZ has turned the custody of the ballots to some Qanon bamboo snorting quacks?

It breaks the Federal laws which require safekeeping of the ballots for 22 months.

Justice Department: Arizona Senate Audit, Recount May Violate Federal Law

If it does violate federal law; that is one thing. States, counties, cities, use outside vendors all the time though...

Again, I'm not going to believe a word the Gateway pundit says so I won't click on the link and what exactly the AG is looking into. If he's looking into that part of it; very well. But other than that, you're giving the whole audit fiasco oxygen.

That's not going to hold water with easily half the nation when votes are TALLIED by outside contractors like Dominion.

Factually incorrect. County boards of elections tallied the votes except in Louisiana...that was done by Parish offices.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Joe Biden's AG Merrick Garland says that he will investigate the State election audits.

BREAKING: AG Merrick Garland Announces that His DOJ Will Scrutinize Any Post-Election Audits for Evidence of Voting Law Violations! | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The corrupt DOJ and its FBI totally ignored the flood of election crimes in the 2020 election. So it’s no surprise that now the corrupt AG decides to threaten any person who is involved in election audits to prevent them from looking into the election crimes and fraud that were committed.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

1) That means that he is investigating his party, his boss and himself......does that seem unethical, do you trust the Dems to investigate themselves?
2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

View attachment 513279

Lets explain things to you...

Garland works for the American People not Biden...

This is meant to be the job of AG but Trump did everything in his power to try and make the AG his personal lawyer... Barr helped him out as much as possible....

If Garland sees a possible crime, he sworn to investigate that..

You’re funny.

 

[forkup]

2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

Barr's DOJ BENT OVER BACKWARDS to investigate purported election crimes. They found nothing major that was even half way credible.

And Trump's AG told you exactly that, but you crazy yahoos just don't want to listen.

Here's the problem you have.

The big counties cheat. They have cheated for years. It's like a truth we all know, like "rich people hire people to get out of paying taxes". Right? It's like a foundational thing. So when you type the above, you type it, but deep down, you're nervous. And we know you're nervous, because you hope the foundational truth is not discovered.

I read a Book every day that has a lot to say about cheating and justice and pride.

So you may get away with it...again.

And you just might not.

"A truth we all know?" Just because you are absolutely, positively, convinced of something doesn’t mean it's true. There are over a billion who believe in God, over a billion who believe in Allah, more believe in Budha, aliens, etc.,etc. Most will tell you they are absolutely, positively, convinced they know this to be true. Yet by definition most of them will be wrong.

A better, and I would suggest only way to determine whether or not a claim is true or not, is whether or not you can support that claim be evidence. I have yet to see any actual evidence that voter fraud happens on a scale to influence an election.

Do you care to take a crack at it?

 

[SweetSue92]

2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

Barr's DOJ BENT OVER BACKWARDS to investigate purported election crimes. They found nothing major that was even half way credible.

And Trump's AG told you exactly that, but you crazy yahoos just don't want to listen.

Here's the problem you have.

The big counties cheat. They have cheated for years. It's like a truth we all know, like "rich people hire people to get out of paying taxes". Right? It's like a foundational thing. So when you type the above, you type it, but deep down, you're nervous. And we know you're nervous, because you hope the foundational truth is not discovered.

I read a Book every day that has a lot to say about cheating and justice and pride.

So you may get away with it...again.

And you just might not.

"A truth we all know?" Just because you are absolutely, positively, convinced of something doesn’t mean it's true. There are over a billion who believe in God, over a billion who believe in Allah, more believe in Budha, aliens, etc.,etc. Most will tell you they are absolutely, positively, convinced they know this to be true. Yet by definition most of them will be wrong.

A better, and I would suggest only way to determine whether or not a claim is true or not, is whether or not you can support that claim be evidence. I have yet to see any actual evidence that voter fraud happens on a scale to influence an election.

Do you care to take a crack at it?

Yeah. The evidence from the AZ hearing yesterday

 

[forkup]

2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

Barr's DOJ BENT OVER BACKWARDS to investigate purported election crimes. They found nothing major that was even half way credible.

And Trump's AG told you exactly that, but you crazy yahoos just don't want to listen.

Here's the problem you have.

The big counties cheat. They have cheated for years. It's like a truth we all know, like "rich people hire people to get out of paying taxes". Right? It's like a foundational thing. So when you type the above, you type it, but deep down, you're nervous. And we know you're nervous, because you hope the foundational truth is not discovered.

I read a Book every day that has a lot to say about cheating and justice and pride.

So you may get away with it...again.

And you just might not.

"A truth we all know?" Just because you are absolutely, positively, convinced of something doesn’t mean it's true. There are over a billion who believe in God, over a billion who believe in Allah, more believe in Budha, aliens, etc.,etc. Most will tell you they are absolutely, positively, convinced they know this to be true. Yet by definition most of them will be wrong.

A better, and I would suggest only way to determine whether or not a claim is true or not, is whether or not you can support that claim be evidence. I have yet to see any actual evidence that voter fraud happens on a scale to influence an election.

Do you care to take a crack at it?

Yeah. The evidence from the AZ hearing yesterday

Oh, what evidence was presented?

 

[SweetSue92]

2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

Barr's DOJ BENT OVER BACKWARDS to investigate purported election crimes. They found nothing major that was even half way credible.

And Trump's AG told you exactly that, but you crazy yahoos just don't want to listen.

Here's the problem you have.

The big counties cheat. They have cheated for years. It's like a truth we all know, like "rich people hire people to get out of paying taxes". Right? It's like a foundational thing. So when you type the above, you type it, but deep down, you're nervous. And we know you're nervous, because you hope the foundational truth is not discovered.

I read a Book every day that has a lot to say about cheating and justice and pride.

So you may get away with it...again.

And you just might not.

"A truth we all know?" Just because you are absolutely, positively, convinced of something doesn’t mean it's true. There are over a billion who believe in God, over a billion who believe in Allah, more believe in Budha, aliens, etc.,etc. Most will tell you they are absolutely, positively, convinced they know this to be true. Yet by definition most of them will be wrong.

A better, and I would suggest only way to determine whether or not a claim is true or not, is whether or not you can support that claim be evidence. I have yet to see any actual evidence that voter fraud happens on a scale to influence an election.

Do you care to take a crack at it?

Yeah. The evidence from the AZ hearing yesterday

Oh, what evidence was presented?

Read this forum. Investigate it yourself. I'm not your trick pony

 

[Mac1958]

What have the ninja boys found? What's there to be afraid of....? Can anyone show any physical evidence that trump got more votes than biden?
I'm not looking for any could have, or may haves or speculations, just real evidence.... Thanks in advance!

It doesn't really matter. We already know what's coming.

When nothing happens, they'll do what they always do: Claim conspiracy and victimhood.

They simply will not believe that the majority of the country doesn't think just like they do.

This doesn't stop any time soon, no matter what happens in the short term.

 

[22lcidw]

Joe Biden's AG Merrick Garland says that he will investigate the State election audits.

BREAKING: AG Merrick Garland Announces that His DOJ Will Scrutinize Any Post-Election Audits for Evidence of Voting Law Violations! | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The corrupt DOJ and its FBI totally ignored the flood of election crimes in the 2020 election. So it’s no surprise that now the corrupt AG decides to threaten any person who is involved in election audits to prevent them from looking into the election crimes and fraud that were committed.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

1) That means that he is investigating his party, his boss and himself......does that seem unethical, do you trust the Dems to investigate themselves?
2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

View attachment 513279

Lets explain things to you...

Garland works for the American People not Biden...

This is meant to be the job of AG but Trump did everything in his power to try and make the AG his personal lawyer... Barr helped him out as much as possible....

If Garland sees a possible crime, he sworn to investigate that..

Garland was pushed as a moderate for the Supreme Court. He is another Progressive Socialist Communist.

 

[forkup]

2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

Barr's DOJ BENT OVER BACKWARDS to investigate purported election crimes. They found nothing major that was even half way credible.

And Trump's AG told you exactly that, but you crazy yahoos just don't want to listen.

Here's the problem you have.

The big counties cheat. They have cheated for years. It's like a truth we all know, like "rich people hire people to get out of paying taxes". Right? It's like a foundational thing. So when you type the above, you type it, but deep down, you're nervous. And we know you're nervous, because you hope the foundational truth is not discovered.

I read a Book every day that has a lot to say about cheating and justice and pride.

So you may get away with it...again.

And you just might not.

"A truth we all know?" Just because you are absolutely, positively, convinced of something doesn’t mean it's true. There are over a billion who believe in God, over a billion who believe in Allah, more believe in Budha, aliens, etc.,etc. Most will tell you they are absolutely, positively, convinced they know this to be true. Yet by definition most of them will be wrong.

A better, and I would suggest only way to determine whether or not a claim is true or not, is whether or not you can support that claim be evidence. I have yet to see any actual evidence that voter fraud happens on a scale to influence an election.

Do you care to take a crack at it?

Yeah. The evidence from the AZ hearing yesterday

Oh, what evidence was presented?

Read this forum. Investigate it yourself. I'm not your trick pony

I did investigate myself. What I found was inuendo and vague claims. I was hoping you would be able to give something specific enough to be considered evidence?

You find supporting your claims overly burdensome?

 

[SweetSue92]

2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

Barr's DOJ BENT OVER BACKWARDS to investigate purported election crimes. They found nothing major that was even half way credible.

And Trump's AG told you exactly that, but you crazy yahoos just don't want to listen.

Here's the problem you have.

The big counties cheat. They have cheated for years. It's like a truth we all know, like "rich people hire people to get out of paying taxes". Right? It's like a foundational thing. So when you type the above, you type it, but deep down, you're nervous. And we know you're nervous, because you hope the foundational truth is not discovered.

I read a Book every day that has a lot to say about cheating and justice and pride.

So you may get away with it...again.

And you just might not.

"A truth we all know?" Just because you are absolutely, positively, convinced of something doesn’t mean it's true. There are over a billion who believe in God, over a billion who believe in Allah, more believe in Budha, aliens, etc.,etc. Most will tell you they are absolutely, positively, convinced they know this to be true. Yet by definition most of them will be wrong.

A better, and I would suggest only way to determine whether or not a claim is true or not, is whether or not you can support that claim be evidence. I have yet to see any actual evidence that voter fraud happens on a scale to influence an election.

Do you care to take a crack at it?

Yeah. The evidence from the AZ hearing yesterday

Oh, what evidence was presented?

Read this forum. Investigate it yourself. I'm not your trick pony

I did investigate myself. What I found was inuendo and vague claims. I was hoping you would be able to give something specific enough to be considered evidence?

You find supporting your claims overly burdensome?

No I find most of it to be silly Internet Games I don't play. Like none of us can Google.

However when I start a thread, I do cite and link. See the Current Events board

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bad move by the AG...

I don't see that anyone is breaking laws with these frivilous audits. You've giving weight to the sideshow by investigating them. Now, that being said, obviously I'm not going to click on the Gateway pundit site and give them any more traffic than they deserve so it's very likely a case of GP over hyping (i.e. lying).

I’m sure Garland’s handlers have calculated this. On the one hand, if they ignored the audits and had their lapdog media smear the audits, they might go away. But, as you correctly noted, they will be giving weight by investigating the audits. Why is that? Because Democrats need to cover up something and the risk of not investigating the audits is greater than ignoring it and having their media smear the audits.

 

[forkup]

2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

Barr's DOJ BENT OVER BACKWARDS to investigate purported election crimes. They found nothing major that was even half way credible.

And Trump's AG told you exactly that, but you crazy yahoos just don't want to listen.

Here's the problem you have.

The big counties cheat. They have cheated for years. It's like a truth we all know, like "rich people hire people to get out of paying taxes". Right? It's like a foundational thing. So when you type the above, you type it, but deep down, you're nervous. And we know you're nervous, because you hope the foundational truth is not discovered.

I read a Book every day that has a lot to say about cheating and justice and pride.

So you may get away with it...again.

And you just might not.

"A truth we all know?" Just because you are absolutely, positively, convinced of something doesn’t mean it's true. There are over a billion who believe in God, over a billion who believe in Allah, more believe in Budha, aliens, etc.,etc. Most will tell you they are absolutely, positively, convinced they know this to be true. Yet by definition most of them will be wrong.

A better, and I would suggest only way to determine whether or not a claim is true or not, is whether or not you can support that claim be evidence. I have yet to see any actual evidence that voter fraud happens on a scale to influence an election.

Do you care to take a crack at it?

Yeah. The evidence from the AZ hearing yesterday

Oh, what evidence was presented?

Read this forum. Investigate it yourself. I'm not your trick pony

I did investigate myself. What I found was inuendo and vague claims. I was hoping you would be able to give something specific enough to be considered evidence?

You find supporting your claims overly burdensome?

No I find most of it to be silly Internet Games I don't play. Like none of us can Google.

However when I start a thread, I do cite and link. See the Current Events board

We are both talking to complete strangers about politics on an internet forum. "Silly internet games" seems to be a given here. The difference lies in the rules of the game we play.

I play by the rules of an actual debate (more or less). This means I support my claims regardless of the fact I start a thread are simply respond to them. Like when I demonstrated that the claim that a person "knows" something to be true quite often is mistaken. I wouldn't be caught dead making a claim like "a truth we all know" it's a textbook logical fallacy called appeal to the people.

You seem to play by a different set of rules. Rules that allow you to make claims and then absolve you from the need to support them. I understand those kinds of rules make it easy to consider yourself to be right. The problem of course is that you will often be mistaking.

As to the "evidence", I think you are referring. (I have no way of knowing since you don't want to actually provide a source)
Arizona Senate hears plea for more Maricopa election materials or risk 'incomplete audit' Point to any claim fraud happened?

 

[candycorn]

Bad move by the AG...

I don't see that anyone is breaking laws with these frivilous audits. You've giving weight to the sideshow by investigating them. Now, that being said, obviously I'm not going to click on the Gateway pundit site and give them any more traffic than they deserve so it's very likely a case of GP over hyping (i.e. lying).

I’m sure Garland’s handlers have calculated this. On the one hand, if they ignored the audits and had their lapdog media smear the audits, they might go away. But, as you correctly noted, they will be giving weight by investigating the audits. Why is that? Because Democrats need to cover up something and the risk of not investigating the audits is greater than ignoring it and having their media smear the audits.

Either that or the AG has a real concern that the cyber ninjas or whomever are doctoring ballots

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bad move by the AG...

I don't see that anyone is breaking laws with these frivilous audits. You've giving weight to the sideshow by investigating them. Now, that being said, obviously I'm not going to click on the Gateway pundit site and give them any more traffic than they deserve so it's very likely a case of GP over hyping (i.e. lying).

I’m sure Garland’s handlers have calculated this. On the one hand, if they ignored the audits and had their lapdog media smear the audits, they might go away. But, as you correctly noted, they will be giving weight by investigating the audits. Why is that? Because Democrats need to cover up something and the risk of not investigating the audits is greater than ignoring it and having their media smear the audits.

Either that or the AG has a real concern that the cyber ninjas or whomever are doctoring ballots

That’s impossible. There is no fraud. Or, are the Democrats concerned the other side will engage in tactics they have engaged in?

 

[whitehall]

Who investigates A.G. Garland? We used to depend on the media but they have become a lost cause.

 

[candycorn]

Bad move by the AG...

I don't see that anyone is breaking laws with these frivilous audits. You've giving weight to the sideshow by investigating them. Now, that being said, obviously I'm not going to click on the Gateway pundit site and give them any more traffic than they deserve so it's very likely a case of GP over hyping (i.e. lying).

I’m sure Garland’s handlers have calculated this. On the one hand, if they ignored the audits and had their lapdog media smear the audits, they might go away. But, as you correctly noted, they will be giving weight by investigating the audits. Why is that? Because Democrats need to cover up something and the risk of not investigating the audits is greater than ignoring it and having their media smear the audits.

Either that or the AG has a real concern that the cyber ninjas or whomever are doctoring ballots

That’s impossible. There is no fraud. Or, are the Democrats concerned the other side will engage in tactics they have engaged in?

Well, your blob's hand picked AG said there was no sizable fraud so the idea that the Democrats performed these tactics is, well, bullshit.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bad move by the AG...

I don't see that anyone is breaking laws with these frivilous audits. You've giving weight to the sideshow by investigating them. Now, that being said, obviously I'm not going to click on the Gateway pundit site and give them any more traffic than they deserve so it's very likely a case of GP over hyping (i.e. lying).

I’m sure Garland’s handlers have calculated this. On the one hand, if they ignored the audits and had their lapdog media smear the audits, they might go away. But, as you correctly noted, they will be giving weight by investigating the audits. Why is that? Because Democrats need to cover up something and the risk of not investigating the audits is greater than ignoring it and having their media smear the audits.

Either that or the AG has a real concern that the cyber ninjas or whomever are doctoring ballots

That’s impossible. There is no fraud. Or, are the Democrats concerned the other side will engage in tactics they have engaged in?

Well, your blob's hand picked AG said there was no sizable fraud so the idea that the Democrats performed these tactics is, well, bullshit.

The fact is Democrats pushed Mail In voting when Absentee Voting was already in place. Democrats fight the notion that people who have not voted in 6 years should be purged from a registration list. Why?

 

[candycorn]

Bad move by the AG...

I don't see that anyone is breaking laws with these frivilous audits. You've giving weight to the sideshow by investigating them. Now, that being said, obviously I'm not going to click on the Gateway pundit site and give them any more traffic than they deserve so it's very likely a case of GP over hyping (i.e. lying).

I’m sure Garland’s handlers have calculated this. On the one hand, if they ignored the audits and had their lapdog media smear the audits, they might go away. But, as you correctly noted, they will be giving weight by investigating the audits. Why is that? Because Democrats need to cover up something and the risk of not investigating the audits is greater than ignoring it and having their media smear the audits.

Either that or the AG has a real concern that the cyber ninjas or whomever are doctoring ballots

That’s impossible. There is no fraud. Or, are the Democrats concerned the other side will engage in tactics they have engaged in?

Well, your blob's hand picked AG said there was no sizable fraud so the idea that the Democrats performed these tactics is, well, bullshit.

The fact is Democrats pushed Mail In voting when Absentee Voting was already in place.

It was in some jurisdictions; it wasn't in others. A better question is why you guys have opposed more people voting.

Five states have done nothing but vote-by-mail for years.....nobody has ever questioned the validity of those elections or the legitimacy of those who were elected.

Their methodology was to send a voter to everyone on the voter rolls...which is what we will discuss next.

Democrats fight the notion that people who have not voted in 6 years should be purged from a registration list. Why?

Six years, in my view is too short an amount of time. Twelve years...now I'm listening.

How about this... Federally mandate every state to have an office of voter integrity whereby a federal official has the authority to cull the vital data (death records, social security data, etc...) and order the states to purge voter rolls of persons who obviously died, moved, etc...

Purging for non-participation is one of those half full/half empty things. Historically about 4 in 10 haven't voted on average. There may be any number of reasons people may register to vote and not vote. We shouldn't insert ourselves into that part of people's lives--remember when you guys liked small government? But if you have an official who can pull all of this data from public and private sources, look at it and see that Jane Doe passed away in 2019 but is still on the voter rolls in 2021... I have no problem with them being purged. But, as we've seen in the past, backwards southern states are all too eager to suppress voting, making it much more difficult than it needs to be, etc.... We need a federal official to be the arbiter of this.

 

[asaratis]

That's not going to hold water with easily half the nation when votes are TALLIED by outside contractors like Dominion.

Votes were tallied and manipulated in Europe via the internet.