The Halderman Report Silences The Election Fraud Deniers

[Leo123]

Again, a bullshit claim.

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...

www.reuters.com

Reuters 'fact check'

 

[Marener]

Reuters 'fact check'

It’s pretty clear you guys really don’t have much use for facts.

Pesky little things they are.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Reuters 'fact check'

Oh, there's literally dozens of these articles.

Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections

The various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and found they were without merit. (Learn more about how the changes that have happened since 2020 will affect the 2024 election and...

campaignlegal.org

 

[BackAgain]

The majority were dismissed on LACK OF EVIDENCE.

False.

 

[Leo123]

Oh, there's literally dozens of these articles.

Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections

The various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and found they were without merit. (Learn more about how the changes that have happened since 2020 will affect the 2024 election and...

campaignlegal.org

Yeah, we know there are literally dozens of radical left Democrat propaganda sites. That you believe this parroted shit is hilarious.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually it's your ignorance on full display here. Standing is anything but just some procedure. Standing means you suffered some sort of injury by the party you are suing. You must have standing to make a claim.

Wrong. Standing is one of the many bases upon which (on purely procedural grounds) a case can be dismissed.

Standing means more than that you are an injured party. Your ignorance is showing

Yes, of course people need standing to Sue. That’s not in dispute. But it’s also not the point.

 

[BackAgain]

I read it.

Not a single one of the conservatives in this thread, including you, has said what they think this report shows.

Is that a coincidence?

Or are you all morons who don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

It’s been quoted. The author has already said what he meant. I don’t know why you seem to imagine that we have an obligation to spoon feed you.

 

[Marener]

It’s been quoted. The author has already said what he meant. I don’t know why you seem to imagine that we have an obligation to spoon feed you.

The author didn’t say shit. They just copied and pasted from an article that we’d have to pay to read more than a few lines.

You aren’t spoon feeding anything. You’re demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about.

If this were actually important and you actually understood it, you wouldn’t be working so hard to avoid talking about the substance of the report.

 

[citygator]

The idiot OP quotes a person saying they swear they can hack the voting system… but offers no evidence anyone did.

I D I O T.

 

[Arlette]

Wrong. Standing is one of the many bases upon which (on purely procedural grounds) a case can be dismissed.

Standing means more than that you are an injured party. Your ignorance is showing

Yes, of course people need standing to Sue. That’s not in dispute. But it’s also not the point.

Yes. If I sue you because you beat your wife, it will be dismissed because I have no standing. I suffered nothing by your action.

Then what's the fucking point?

 

[BackAgain]

The author didn’t say shit. They just copied and pasted from an article that we’d have to pay to read more than a few lines

No, you turnip. The author of the report. Damn, you’re a moron.

You aren’t spoon feeding anything. You’re demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Wrong. I decline to aooon feed a turnip like you who is too lazy to read.

If this were actually important and you actually understood it, you wouldn’t be working so hard to avoid talking about the substance of the report.

Read the report. It can’t be that hard web for a jerkoff simpleton such as you.

Edited to ask: you do realize the link was provided in the OP, itself, don’t you? Or were you confused by the standard hyperlink? You dope. Here. Read it:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1681.0.pdf

 

[Marener]

No, you turnip. The author of the report. Damn, you’re a moron.


Wrong. I decline to aooon feed a turnip like you who is too lazy to read.

Read the report. It can’t be that hard web for a jerkoff simpleton such as you.

Like I said, you’re trying really hard to not talk about this report which means you either haven’t read it or you know it’s irrelevant.

Either way, you are a loser.

 

[citygator]

Like I said, you’re trying really hard to not talk about this report which means you either haven’t read it or you know it’s irrelevant.

Either way, you are a loser.

It offers zero evidence. Just some dude saying here is how you can change votes.

 

[Arlette]

The idiot OP quotes a person saying they swear they can hack the voting system… but offers no evidence anyone did.

I D I O T.

What I find most interesting about the 2020 election is that the cons who won their races won them on the same ballots, voted under the same conditions as the ones Trump was disputing

 

[citygator]

What I find most interesting about the 2020 election is that the cons who won their races won them on the same ballots, voted under the same conditions as the ones Trump was disputing

I also find it interesting that all powerful Democrat vote manipulators only affected enough votes to ensure a split control that came down to GA runoffs. I mean it would be too obvious otherwise I guess.

 

[Arlette]

I also find it interesting that all powerful Democrat vote manipulators only affected enough votes to ensure a split control that came down to GA runoffs. I mean it would be too obvious otherwise I guess.

Who are those all powerful Democrat vote manipulators?

 

[citygator]

Who are those all powerful Democrat vote manipulators?

Don’t ask me, ask the conspiracy nuts. They seem to “know” the election was manipulated. Of course only the ones they lost were manipulated.

 

[Moonglow]

Everyone knows that things weren't proper in Georgia in 2020(among several other states).

If we had a free press, a report like this would be a major story. But, we only have the MSM which is a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party and the deep state.

The most important report in 2023 is the Halderman report — which has finally been “unsealed” by our corrupt court system. Its 96 pages sound the death knell for the election fraud deniers in both political parties — and for electronic voting machines in general.

Page 4 is brutal.

---

---

Ah yes, the old “multiple routes by which attackers can install malicious software” ploy!

Page 5 is even more brutal.

---

---

The Halderman Report Silences The Election Fraud Deniers

Georgia's election system has been exposed by a liberal professor

www.emerald.tv

​

But they were fine when Trump won.

 

[miketx]

This is just more of the same old conspiracy bullshit that you keep posting.

I knew you lying bastards would keep lying.

 

[Moonglow]

Who are those all powerful Democrat vote manipulators?

God and Satan.