SHAFFER: Here’s The Evidence Of Widespread Election Fraud.

[iceberg]

Three fucking yeas of screeching RUSSIA! with nothing more than faked evidence and squeezing peripheral players trying to get them to make shit up.

It's pretty crazy how easy it would have been for Trump to avoid the whole Russia scandal.

Here's how it goes in three steps:
1. Admit that everyone agrees that Russia hacked the DNC to help your candidacy.
2. Make sure that no one in your campaign, like your first born child, meet with Russians who are promising help from the Russian government for your candidacy
3. Don't lie about people in your campaign who did meet with Russians during the campaign.

Do those three things, and there never would have been any investigation. But turns out when you lie constantly, it raises suspicion.

1. hacking still debatable. sorry you don't like that and your facts and your facts alone don't tell the whole story.
2. prove this was the topic of conversation vs. you assuming it like HE SAID DRINK BLEACH!!!
3. flynn? totally dismissed.

0-3, you're out.

 

[colfax_m]

trump winning one wasn't evidence of RUSSIA either.

It wasn't and I don't know anyone who claimed it was, certainly not me.

The evidence that Russia acted in our election in 2016 is extensive and extremely well documented in investigations and publications that were released before and after the investigation.

The evidence that there is widespread fraud to help Biden win the election is entirely circumstantial, sometimes fraudulent, usually misleading, and almost never corroborated.

 

[colfax_m]

1. hacking still debatable. sorry you don't like that and your facts and your facts alone don't tell the whole story.
2. prove this was the topic of conversation vs. you assuming it like HE SAID DRINK BLEACH!!!
3. flynn? totally dismissed.

1. The hacking is not debatable by anyone with a modicum of understanding about what happened.
2. It's in the emails that they sent to Don Jr. The email exchange Trump Jr. released, in chronological order
3. I wasn't actually referring to Flynn. I was referring to Papadopoulos and Trump himself. But yeah, Flynn lying was also something that raised suspicion.

 

[schmidlap]

No one condones cheating.

Pointing out the fact that there was no fraud is not to condone cheating.

Self-serving lies that the winner cheated with no credible evidence to support it may be swallowed by a mindless cult, but not by rational Americans or the courts. There is a wide chasm between show biz and jurisprudence.

That distinction constitutes the demarcation between fantasy and reality.

Were Dominion vote tabulators impersonated by Trump-averse, shape-shifting aliens from the planet Kolob who swallowed the actual ballots, pooped out bogus ones, and stealthily absconded, evading the intrepid Ttrump Space Force, his Keystone Cops of the Empyrion, and even all his space cadets with their secret decoder rings?

Put super-sleuth Kris Kobach on the case!

 

[ReinyDays]

Why has it taken 37 days for this to surface? ... 4 days before the EC meets? ... have this Stenstrom fella disposed, put him on the witness stand under oath ... let's see what comes up in hostile cross-examination ...

These "law and order" conservatives sure don't know much about law and order ...

 

[Moonglow]

I'm not going to let a bunch of angry people tell me what I see.

All you see is propaganda from an unknown source..

 

[Moonglow]

Which ballots representing which registered voters were fraudulent?

One theory is that the 3-5 million invisible bogus balloteers that Trump blamed in 2016 for his popular vote loss (every one of whom eluded Trump's super-sleuth Kobach) have, during the reign of trumpery, multiplied until they now number over 8 million, but remain as stealthy as ever.

Now that is excellent cloaking abilities.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Liberal vision:

Sees fraud in 2016 election with no evidence.

Does mot see fraud in 2020 election with mountains of evidence.

 

[Moonglow]

Liberal vision:

Sees fraud in 2016 election with no evidence.

Does mot see fraud in 2020 election with mountains of evidence.

I never saw any fraud in 2016 and I don't see it now...You could try being reasonable but belligerency is yer game. And congrats on acting like Dems did in 2016 after the election, your free pussy hat from Trump shall arrive soon.

 

[iceberg]

I'm not going to let a bunch of angry people tell me what I see.

All you see is propaganda from an unknown source..

you're right. all i see if your bullshit from where ever you happen to get it.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm not going to let a bunch of angry people tell me what I see.

All you see is propaganda from an unknown source..

you're right. all i see if your bullshit from where ever you happen to get it.

Engrish please...

 

[iceberg]

1. hacking still debatable. sorry you don't like that and your facts and your facts alone don't tell the whole story.
2. prove this was the topic of conversation vs. you assuming it like HE SAID DRINK BLEACH!!!
3. flynn? totally dismissed.

1. The hacking is not debatable by anyone with a modicum of understanding about what happened.
2. It's in the emails that they sent to Don Jr. The email exchange Trump Jr. released, in chronological order
3. I wasn't actually referring to Flynn. I was referring to Papadopoulos and Trump himself. But yeah, Flynn lying was also something that raised suspicion.

1. the hacking is not debatable because we love it and our guys say it happened. ok, we must go by how you feel and anyone disagreeing is deemed NAZI. that *is* how the left rolls these days. forgive me if i don't follow along that mindset.
2. great. we have e-mails, videos, testimony, and so forth of fraud. let's dig. you got to, their turn.
3. papadopoulos - the dude that was led to say what he did by the FBI and setup to give a reason to go dig deeper, like they did to flynn? you were better off with flynn as your example.

now - none of this is addressing the topic at hand of the fraud found in this election. reel your jollies back in and lets stay focused on this topic. i drifted also but lets get back on target.

your link before only referenced 1 person, not the main person in this story. ergo, it doesn't cover it all.

 

[colfax_m]

1. hacking still debatable. sorry you don't like that and your facts and your facts alone don't tell the whole story.
2. prove this was the topic of conversation vs. you assuming it like HE SAID DRINK BLEACH!!!
3. flynn? totally dismissed.

1. The hacking is not debatable by anyone with a modicum of understanding about what happened.
2. It's in the emails that they sent to Don Jr. The email exchange Trump Jr. released, in chronological order
3. I wasn't actually referring to Flynn. I was referring to Papadopoulos and Trump himself. But yeah, Flynn lying was also something that raised suspicion.

1. the hacking is not debatable because we love it and our guys say it happened. ok, we must go by how you feel and anyone disagreeing is deemed NAZI. that *is* how the left rolls these days. forgive me if i don't follow along that mindset.
2. great. we have e-mails, videos, testimony, and so forth of fraud. let's dig. you got to, their turn.
3. papadopoulos - the dude that was led to say what he did by the FBI and setup to give a reason to go dig deeper, like they did to flynn? you were better off with flynn as your example.

now - none of this is addressing the topic at hand of the fraud found in this election. reel your jollies back in and lets stay focused on this topic. i drifted also but lets get back on target.

your link before only referenced 1 person, not the main person in this story. ergo, it doesn't cover it all.

1. It's not debatable because there's never been any rational or real argument put against it. Meanwhile, it's been demonstrated in investigation after investigation from career professionals from both parties and those without any political persuasion.
2. This is not relevant to the conversation, but yeah, we got emails that demonstrated that Trump's team was in contact with Russians promising government help to promote his candidacy. Now, if you can produce emails from election officials where they talk about stealing the election, you might have something to sink your teeth into, but so far that's just not happening.
3. Ha! You're claiming that the FBI led Papadopoulos to lie them? Jesus, what did they do? Hypnotize him? Get outta here and come back with something halfway rational.

Getting back to the main topic, the article listed three people. I produced links countering two of them. The third person I haven't gotten around to. Been a busy morning.

Two out of three isn't bad.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Why has it taken 37 days for this to surface? ... 4 days before the EC meets? ... have this Stenstrom fella disposed, put him on the witness stand under oath ... let's see what comes up in hostile cross-examination ...

These "law and order" conservatives sure don't know much about law and order ...

stenstroms declaration is from november 9, 2020. lol

 

[iceberg]

1. hacking still debatable. sorry you don't like that and your facts and your facts alone don't tell the whole story.
2. prove this was the topic of conversation vs. you assuming it like HE SAID DRINK BLEACH!!!
3. flynn? totally dismissed.

1. The hacking is not debatable by anyone with a modicum of understanding about what happened.
2. It's in the emails that they sent to Don Jr. The email exchange Trump Jr. released, in chronological order
3. I wasn't actually referring to Flynn. I was referring to Papadopoulos and Trump himself. But yeah, Flynn lying was also something that raised suspicion.

1. the hacking is not debatable because we love it and our guys say it happened. ok, we must go by how you feel and anyone disagreeing is deemed NAZI. that *is* how the left rolls these days. forgive me if i don't follow along that mindset.
2. great. we have e-mails, videos, testimony, and so forth of fraud. let's dig. you got to, their turn.
3. papadopoulos - the dude that was led to say what he did by the FBI and setup to give a reason to go dig deeper, like they did to flynn? you were better off with flynn as your example.

now - none of this is addressing the topic at hand of the fraud found in this election. reel your jollies back in and lets stay focused on this topic. i drifted also but lets get back on target.

your link before only referenced 1 person, not the main person in this story. ergo, it doesn't cover it all.

1. It's not debatable because there's never been any rational or real argument put against it. Meanwhile, it's been demonstrated in investigation after investigation from career professionals from both parties and those without any political persuasion.
2. This is not relevant to the conversation, but yeah, we got emails that demonstrated that Trump's team was in contact with Russians promising government help to promote his candidacy. Now, if you can produce emails from election officials where they talk about stealing the election, you might have something to sink your teeth into, but so far that's just not happening.
3. Ha! You're claiming that the FBI led Papadopoulos to lie them? Jesus, what did they do? Hypnotize him? Get outta here and come back with something halfway rational.

Getting back to the main topic, the article listed three people. I produced links countering two of them. The third person I haven't gotten around to. Been a busy morning.

Two out of three isn't bad.

if you're meatloaf, no. but at this point i'm giving a link, you give a link saying NO WAY.

what is the point if you're going to go strictly by your desired NO WAY and not even discussion the aspects of the case itself, but just work with every post to discredit it?

 

[iceberg]

I'm not going to let a bunch of angry people tell me what I see.

All you see is propaganda from an unknown source..

you're right. all i see if your bullshit from where ever you happen to get it.

Engrish please...

your own inability to understand simple things isn't my problem.

 

[colfax_m]

if you're meatloaf, no. but at this point i'm giving a link, you give a link saying NO WAY.

what is the point if you're going to go strictly by your desired NO WAY and not even discussion the aspects of the case itself, but just work with every post to discredit it?

The article relies on three whistleblowers. Stenstrom's claim is that the room was filled with ballots, and the other two whistleblowers is used to support that the ballots in the room were not legitimate.

The two whistleblowers to support this allegation are either irrelevant (because the statements and claims made occurred after ballots were counted) or produced by someone so laughably incredible that it cannot be taken seriously.

This is a three legged stool, and I've pulled out two of the legs. This is not me just saying "no way" it's me explaining why no one takes this story seriously. You are deciding to ignore these explanations.

 

[ReinyDays]

stenstroms declaration is from november 9, 2020. lol

Ah ... so it's already been rejected by the courts ... so why bring it up now? ... it's not legal evidence ...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Too little too late. Try again next time.

AKA

 

[colfax_m]

Too little too late. Try again next time.

AKA
View attachment 427383

Stealing the election would be asking SCOTUS to throw out the votes of the electors.