Election Results

[msquared]

The WI "audit" authorized by Robin Voss and headed up by election denier Gableman is coming under some scrutiny.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/accomplished-nothing-judge-admonishes-michael-230234979.html

[wmLambert]

The WI "audit" authorized by Robin Voss and headed up by election denier Gableman is coming under some scrutiny.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/accomplished-nothing-judge-admonishes-michael-230234979.html

One could make a soap opera from that case. Remington would not recuse himself from it, and former WI Supreme Court Justice Gableman provided enough info to generate the police action needed to get definitive witness reports admitted, but was stymied. Like all the other actions, the prosecutors were ridiculed for not providing facts, yet the witness affidavits were not admissible. and Gableman couldn't get interviews with witnesses admitted.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos fired Gableman — a week after former President Donald Trump announced Gableman endorsed Vos' primary opponent, Adam Steen. Gableman said, "I don't think because we provided all the records that they should have awarded all of these hundreds of thousands of dollars of bogus fees for these liberal special interest groups." The judge fined Gableman erroneously, even Vos commented on that. It was rescinded for cause, but the soap opera is still alive. Despite Gableman's termination, the Office of Special Counsel still exists — without employees or a budget.

[Tom]

Almost everything in your first paragraph is factually incorrect, William.

[jc44]

Just for the record I really appreciate William posting here - without him I would be unable to believe that the reported positions of Trump supporters were real.  I don't go near that section of the media, but he brings home just how unshakeable some of that faith is.

[LetterRip]

jc44,

you have a point, I'd never really thought about it.

[TheDrake]

I read Breitbart comments to inoculate myself against the qanon crazies and stay out of the echo chamber of people that I agree with. Yes, wm does also fill that role.

[DJQuag]

I for one think rural religious conservatives get a bad name.

They stood up for their rights in Iran, a place we have pictures of women in the sixties wearing miniskirts, and look at it now. 

[wmLambert]

I guess if you are a Democrat apologist that it is easier to denigrate truth-tellers than it is to reconsider your incorrect dogma.

[jc44]

I guess if you are a Democrat apologist that it is easier to denigrate truth-tellers than it is to reconsider your incorrect dogma.

s/Democrat/party or belief of your choice/ and that is a universal truth.

[TheDrake]

wm, I don't think you've built a solid stable of truth tellers. You truth teller bin includes people that have been caught red-handed in lies based on their own contradicting recorded statements. Based on visual evidence of crowd size. Based on audit after audit proving them wrong. You probably still believe Giuliani's lie about Georgia, that there were more absentee votes cast than were sent out, that was immediately disproven with a visit to the Georgia elections website. So now, we are not denigrating truth-tellers. We are denigrating proven liars.

When you yourself believe you are the truth-teller, you are only able to do that by ignoring direct evidence of your poor grasp of facts. You never provide your sources to add any credibility to your claims, such as the one about witness affidavits. I can't find any source on that one, credible or otherwise. Nor about Vos, though even if true, not surprising nor damning since Vos was in danger of being fined as well for trying to block the public interest.

You want to establish yourself as a truth teller, wm? Start providing a shred of proof that backs up your wild, Sydney Powell style statements. Ethos is earned not granted by default. Since you're apparently not familiar with the concept, I'll leave you with a definition.

Ethos is an element of argument and persuasion through which a speaker establishes their credibility and knowledge, as well as their good moral character.

[wmLambert]

wm, I don't think you've built a solid stable of truth tellers. You truth teller bin includes people that have been caught red-handed in lies based on their own contradicting recorded statements. Based on visual evidence of crowd size. Based on audit after audit proving them wrong. You probably still believe Giuliani's lie about Georgia, that there were more absentee votes cast than were sent out, that was immediately disproven with a visit to the Georgia elections website. So now, we are not denigrating truth-tellers. We are denigrating proven liars.

When you yourself believe you are the truth-teller, you are only able to do that by ignoring direct evidence of your poor grasp of facts. You never provide your sources to add any credibility to your claims, such as the one about witness affidavits. I can't find any source on that one, credible or otherwise. Nor about Vos, though even if true, not surprising nor damning since Vos was in danger of being fined as well for trying to block the public interest.

You want to establish yourself as a truth teller, wm? Start providing a shred of proof that backs up your wild, Sydney Powell style statements. Ethos is earned not granted by default. Since you're apparently not familiar with the concept, I'll leave you with a definition.

Ethos is an element of argument and persuasion through which a speaker establishes their credibility and knowledge, as well as their good moral character.

Sorry - but you are 180° out of whack, diametrically in opposition to the truth. Your side is not truth tellers. When your information sources spend 10 to 15 seconds a day on stories that are detrimental to their causes - and you ignore real news - you miss the truth. Do you argue they don't spend more than 10 or fifteen seconds on truth? How do you know what truth is, when you've never seen it? The left-wing appointed courts (some Never-Trumpers) refuse to even open eyewitness affidavits, you spend the next two years spouting how the court cases "prove" your disinformation as truth. How much time did Brian Stelter spend on examining Hunter's criminality? Why did Hillary's entire staff get immunity over her email fiasco - but never get asked any questions? You see this stuff and you ignore it. Some of us don't.

[rightleft22]

I guess if you are a Democrat apologist that it is easier to denigrate truth-tellers than it is to reconsider your incorrect dogma.

WM would you consider yourself a Republican apologist? How much time do you evaluate your dogma.

[Tom]

It's been quite interesting to see how what William feels like insisting is true on any given day matches up to the trending hashtags among right-wingers on Twitter. I suppose you have to admire that tight control of the messaging.

[rightleft22]

I suspect that if you dig a little you will find A home site that provides the talking points for the day. The speed of which these talking points get disseminated is scary impressive. That they are taken as fact without question and passed along by those that are useful.

Watched a documentary on the Philippines's, amazing to watch as the majority of the population work so hard against there best interests and values. 

[DJQuag]

I suspect that if you dig a little you will find A home site that provides the talking points for the day. The speed of which these talking points get disseminated is scary impressive. That they are taken as fact without question and passed along by those that are useful.

Watched a documentary on the Philippines's, amazing to watch as the majority of the population work so hard against there best interests and values. 

I think it's more likely that there are a handful of very popular sources, worshipped for not being mainstream and owning the libs. These sources have "journalists," who get given their talking points by whatever council of right wing theatre is currently running things on that side. They publish it, and social media does the rest. It's a bit like trickle down economics except in this case it actually works.

[DJQuag]

I guess if you are a Democrat apologist that it is easier to denigrate truth-tellers than it is to reconsider your incorrect dogma.

This is so condescending. I'm no less intelligent then you, William. I've seen the same arguments, facts, and figures that you have. We just disagree.

Please. If this is how you're going to think, just call me the enemy. Don't look down on me.

[Wayward Son]

I guess if you are a Democrat apologist that it is easier to denigrate truth-tellers than it is to reconsider your incorrect dogma.

Here's the thing you don't seem to understand, William:  WE DON'T BELEIVE YOU.

You make these statements, and all of our trusted sources disagree with them. You sometimes provide sources, and we find they are untrustworthy/do not prove their statements/exaggerate/lie/etc.  We tell you that, and you ignore us.

We explain contradictions in your statements, and you ignore us.

We ask you to find further information, hoping we can use it to show that you are wrong, and you ignore us.

We provide you with facts that contradict your beliefs, and you ignore us.

You tell us that the proof is everywhere, if we'd only look at it/for it.  Sometimes we do, and find that it isn't.

You expect us to believe everything you say without adequate proof, and then you are amazed that we don't believe you.  You put it down to us being apologists and dogmatists and listening to liars.  You tell us the fault is with us.

Why should I believe you?  What possible reason have you given us to think that you are telling us facts and truth?  Telling us that we're stupid ain't gonna cut it.

If you have facts, show them.  If we have objections, address them.  If we say your sources are inadequate, find better ones.  Drill down to the original sources, not the reports which could be biased.  Engage with us and give us what we need to be convinced that you have the facts straight.  Or try to do it as best you can.  At least better than you have been.

Because right now, WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU.  And no amount of cajoling or needling or bombasting will change our minds.

Because we've assembled our set of facts for our positions.  Until you provide us a better set of facts--well, what can I say?  We won't believe you.

[msquared]

Wm

Just one example.  In a thread you started a few weeks ago about climate change you talked about a report from a group you claimed was non partisan.  It was quickly shown that the group was not a non partisan group.   The fact that you claimed it was non partisan when it took about 20 seconds to find several reports of the history of the group and their partisan work makes any other claims you make suspect.

[yossarian22c]

Wm

Just one example.  In a thread you started a few weeks ago about climate change you talked about a report from a group you claimed was non partisan.  It was quickly shown that the group was not a non partisan group.   The fact that you claimed it was non partisan when it took about 20 seconds to find several reports of the history of the group and their partisan work makes any other claims you make suspect.

And another. You repeat the claim that there are 100's of affidavits that demonstrate fraud that no court would look at. I've asked repeatedly for you to give us an example of one such affidavit. Not a list of them. One affidavit with an explanation as to what kind of fraud and how much fraud it demonstrates. Does it ever bother you that you can't answer simple questions about your claims?

[Wayward Son]

And another.  On page 35 of this very thread, I asked you:

When they say 86,391 Ballots Related Invisible Voters, how did they determine they were "invisible?"  Did they compare it to a database of voters?  If so, what database was it?

I found the answer in a 30-second internet search.  But I wanted you to find the answer, so when I presented a quote based on that answer, you would know it wasn't just some liberal lie, but based on a fact that you, yourself, had verified.

But you never did...

[DJQuag]

https://giphy.com/gifs/the-simpsons-stop-hes-already-dead-JCAZQKoMefkoX6TyTb

[wmLambert]

I guess if you are a Democrat apologist that it is easier to denigrate truth-tellers than it is to reconsider your incorrect dogma.

This is so condescending. I'm no less intelligent then you, William. I've seen the same arguments, facts, and figures that you have. We just disagree.

Please. If this is how you're going to think, just call me the enemy. Don't look down on me.

Sorry if you think anyone believes you less intelligent than they are if you say you see the same info, but cannot add 2 + 2 and get 4.

Let me show some of the nonsense we see everyday. The local newspaper had a short article on one City Council Candidate who was  arraigned in 41-A District Court, Aug 5th, on nine counts of forging signatures and another nine counts of making false statements on absentee ballot applications. What is interesting is that nowhere in the short article did it mention he was a Democrat, following the Democrat strategy and tactics. Anyone doing a search for Democrat vote-scamming will not find this court action. This guy evidently handed in 50 ballots with his name selected on each ballot. The State attorney General said all such vote-scam cases must originate at the local level, and if a first look shows up red flags, then it gets taken over by the State Police or office of Michigan Attorney General.

Look, Dems have been doing this for one generation after another. The Dem apologist always demand proof, but do all they can to obscure the evidence. Michigan has been a blue state, yet every mail-piece put out by a Democrat candidate always omits mentioning what party they represent. Every single mailer I've received for the last decade follows this practice. Why do they do this? Our ballots always lists them by party, so they must know their secret will get out. My county is a bellwether area that pollsters  target. The way we vote usually denotes who wins.

The only reason I see, is that The Democrats are decidedly pointed at doing what works in the past, shady or not. Y'know, the ends justifies the means. Facts are secondary to acceptance. Many, many Focus groups and Democrat think tanks promote clichés and talking points that are presented with total horizontal and vertical saturation the moment they are generated. The Dems are very good at reflecting the PC version - right or wrong.

But that's just my thinking - not the generally accepted Democrat POV.

[Tom]

But that's just my thinking...

That's overstating it a bit.

[yossarian22c]

....

Let me show some of the nonsense we see everyday. The local newspaper had a short article on one City Council Candidate who was  arraigned in 41-A District Court, Aug 5th, on nine counts of forging signatures and another nine counts of making false statements on absentee ballot applications. What is interesting is that nowhere in the short article did it mention he was a Democrat, following the Democrat strategy and tactics.
...

And if I show you an example of a Republican doing the same thing? Does that make it a Republican, following Republican strategy and tactics? This type of vote scamming happens, particularly by candidates in races that may be decided by less than 100 votes. The reward for cheating is high, the candidate wins a seat they otherwise wouldn't have. The risk is modest if you keep it small and no one knows about it. Don't you notice the guy forges 9 signatures, turns in a couple dozen ballots and he gets detected and caught. How are the Democrats succeeding in doing something 1,000 times a big without being caught?

But as Tom says engaging in your antidotes probably isn't productive. You've ignored requests for identifying and explaining one affidavit that shows fraud. You ignore all facts that don't fit in your worldview. This Democrat who got caught set off alarm bells in your head. Can you name the Republicans who have done similar or worse? They exist. But I'm sure you'll be back in a month spouting the same nonsense, that we just don't understand. You're the boy who cried wolf with your claims. You never back them up, they are almost always overblown (or in this case not significant on a national scale and show that voter fraud is detected, even at low levels). So get your rage induced dopamine fix by ranting about this one local election that doesn't scale up like you claim. Ignore all evidence the contrary and repeat again in a couple weeks.

[TheDrake]

I guess if you are a Democrat apologist that it is easier to denigrate truth-tellers than it is to reconsider your incorrect dogma.

This is so condescending. I'm no less intelligent then you, William. I've seen the same arguments, facts, and figures that you have. We just disagree.

Please. If this is how you're going to think, just call me the enemy. Don't look down on me.

Sorry if you think anyone believes you less intelligent than they are if you say you see the same info, but cannot add 2 + 2 and get 4.

Let me show some of the nonsense we see everyday. The local newspaper had a short article on one City Council Candidate who was  arraigned in 41-A District Court, Aug 5th, on nine counts of forging signatures and another nine counts of making false statements on absentee ballot applications. What is interesting is that nowhere in the short article did it mention he was a Democrat, following the Democrat strategy and tactics. Anyone doing a search for Democrat vote-scamming will not find this court action. This guy evidently handed in 50 ballots with his name selected on each ballot. The State attorney General said all such vote-scam cases must originate at the local level, and if a first look shows up red flags, then it gets taken over by the State Police or office of Michigan Attorney General.

Look, Dems have been doing this for one generation after another. The Dem apologist always demand proof, but do all they can to obscure the evidence. Michigan has been a blue state, yet every mail-piece put out by a Democrat candidate always omits mentioning what party they represent. Every single mailer I've received for the last decade follows this practice. Why do they do this? Our ballots always lists them by party, so they must know their secret will get out. My county is a bellwether area that pollsters  target. The way we vote usually denotes who wins.

The only reason I see, is that The Democrats are decidedly pointed at doing what works in the past, shady or not. Y'know, the ends justifies the means. Facts are secondary to acceptance. Many, many Focus groups and Democrat think tanks promote clichés and talking points that are presented with total horizontal and vertical saturation the moment they are generated. The Dems are very good at reflecting the PC version - right or wrong.

But that's just my thinking - not the generally accepted Democrat POV.

Can't you see how vague you are? You've read this article, but you're not citing it. You say "the local newspaper" - which local newspaper? What is the name of "this guy"? I'm not playing your game anymore. I'm not searching for any of your garbage, because it always leads to my wasted time.

[Tom]

Allow me, as someone who occasionally volunteers for political marketing campaigns, to also offer a reason less nefarious than "fraud" for why a candidate (of either party) might leave their party affiliation off a mailer:

1) The candidate is trying to build name recognition and personal brand;
2) The mailer is focusing on one or more popular position(s) the candidate holds that may or may not be shared by their party;
3) The candidate is campaigning in an area with a substantial number of people who poll negatively against the candidate's party (for any number of reasons), but who poll in support of positions espoused by the candidate;
4) The mailer is being sent to a batch of voters who have been identified as weak supporters of the other party but who, for demographic reasons, might consider supporting this candidate;
5) The mailer is crafted as an attack ad on the other party's candidate, and hopes to push information harmful to that candidate to suppress enthusiasm.

In my area, which leans heavily Democratic, we see this from Republicans running for things like school board or circuit court all the time.

[TheDrake]

City Council and other municipal elections are often run without party affiliation. That's true for my city. We call it non-partisan, I know that may not make any sense to wm. The ballots don't have (R) or (D) on them.

[msquared]

Wm

Do you have any examples where thousands of votes were changed for a National election?

[wmLambert]

City Council and other municipal elections are often run without party affiliation. That's true for my city. We call it non-partisan, I know that may not make any sense to wm. The ballots don't have (R) or (D) on them.

The ballots here list by party affiliation. The nly non-partisan area is in the judicial areas - even though the candidates are endorsed by party.

BTW; doea everyone see how smarmy Tom was in his post. Why is he still allowed on this board?

[Tom]

City Council and other municipal elections are often run without party affiliation.

William was saying that he can't recall having received a mailer for a Michigan Democrat in the last decade that mentioned the candidate's party affiliation. Without questioning his veracity, and without knowing precisely where in Michigan he lives, I didn't want to assume.

[TheDrake]

City Council and other municipal elections are often run without party affiliation.

William was saying that he can't recall having received a mailer for a Michigan Democrat in the last decade that mentioned the candidate's party affiliation. Without questioning his veracity, and without knowing precisely where in Michigan he lives, I didn't want to assume.

Got it. It's hard to keep up with wm sometimes. I'm happy to take his word for the fact that those races are partisan in his area, and if this is from his hometown, I withdraw the demand for sources. He shouldn't have to reveal his location. But, by the same token, there's no meaningful way for me to respond to the allegation of how such things are reported.

[wmLambert]

City Council and other municipal elections are often run without party affiliation.

William was saying that he can't recall having received a mailer for a Michigan Democrat in the last decade that mentioned the candidate's party affiliation. Without questioning his veracity, and without knowing precisely where in Michigan he lives, I didn't want to assume.

Got it. It's hard to keep up with wm sometimes. I'm happy to take his word for the fact that those races are partisan in his area, and if this is from his hometown, I withdraw the demand for sources. He shouldn't have to reveal his location. But, by the same token, there's no meaningful way for me to respond to the allegation of how such things are reported.

Thank you. I only see the same actions every election and wonder why the stories disappear so quickly - and then see apologists claim they never happened. All I can do is point you at them and hope uou can secure your own validation on them.

[yossarian22c]

City Council and other municipal elections are often run without party affiliation.

William was saying that he can't recall having received a mailer for a Michigan Democrat in the last decade that mentioned the candidate's party affiliation. Without questioning his veracity, and without knowing precisely where in Michigan he lives, I didn't want to assume.

Got it. It's hard to keep up with wm sometimes. I'm happy to take his word for the fact that those races are partisan in his area, and if this is from his hometown, I withdraw the demand for sources. He shouldn't have to reveal his location. But, by the same token, there's no meaningful way for me to respond to the allegation of how such things are reported.

Thank you. I only see the same actions every election and wonder why the stories disappear so quickly - and then see apologists claim they never happened. All I can do is point you at them and hope uou can secure your own validation on them.

No one has ever disputed that local officials occasionally try to commit small scale voter fraud to get themselves elected in a race that can be swung by dozens of votes. But it does nothing to support your broader claims about election fraud. Because the systems in place find and detect small scale fraud of dozens of votes organized by 1 person. But you claim they can't detect fraud on the order of 10,000 votes organized by 100s of people who all keep silent.

[wmLambert]

Okay, let's look at the broader picture of election fraud. Today, Joe Rogan interviewed Zuckerberg and asked him why he blocked all the news about Hunter's diary. Zuckerberg said the FBI came to him and told then to not allow any laptop stories to continue because of "Russian propaganda." As we now know, the FBI had the laptop at that time and knew it was the real deal. They told Zuckerberg if the story got out, Biden could not win the election. When asked, Zuckerberg said it was just verbal - nothing written down. At the same time, the Russia! Russia! Russia! Steele Dossier was known to be fake, and the FBI pushed it as real - and used it to get FISA court permission to bug Trump.

The FBI is forbidden from doing either of those things.

In 2020, Zuckerberg donated millions to fund illegal ballot boxes.

On top of that, big Pharma admitted they were told to hold off the announcement of vaccines until after the election - even though they were readfy earflier. Again, it was done to influence the election.

Why doubt anything these liars and scammers do?

[Tom]

Are you familiar with the concept called the "gish gallop," William?

[wmLambert]

Are you familiar with the concept called the "gish gallop," William?

I believe that would be your specialty. Did you not want to answer why the FBI did influence the election illegally by denying anything about the laptop, yet pushed the Steele Dossier?

The Zuckerberg interview is current news, confirming it was not him - but the FBI which told him to not allow the laptop revelations, that the FBI said would influence the election. I guess you want to avoid that, neh? I do not prioritize the quantity of arguments and ignore the quality of the argument. Your Gish Gallop is to attack on something not germane and neglect the latest news. I guess Zuckerberg's info is not worthy of your enormous intellect? Answer instead of deflecting and everyone here might then be able to discern your abilities.

[Tom]

Did you not want to answer why the FBI did influence the election illegally by denying anything about the laptop, yet pushed the Steele Dossier?

First off, it's a dodge and a non sequitur; here you're grasping at the possibility of election influence, not election fraud, but the entire "Big Lie" argument asserts election fraud. But of course there's no evidence of statistically meaningful fraud, even after desperate ages spent searching, so now you're defining "fraud" to include any allegations of improper influence.

But, no, I don't particularly give a crap about Hunter Biden. In fact, my personal policy is to not bother discussing Hunter Biden online with anyone who did not previously criticize Jared Kushner at least twice where I might see it; it defends my time from being wasted by hypocrites.

[msquared]

Well an election Fraud perpetrator has been removed from a States voter list.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/13/mark-meadows-north-carolina-removed-voter-rolls/?fbclid=IwAR3nEG4OSLJeeg-uMLsnSedSQALKDAcGiQjZ9Rik0091TFrD-UM3777uAXM

Mark Meadows knows there was fraud in the election since he committed it.

[wmLambert]

Did you not want to answer why the FBI did influence the election illegally by denying anything about the laptop, yet pushed the Steele Dossier?

First off, it's a dodge and a non sequitur; here you're grasping at the possibility of election influence, not election fraud, but the entire "Big Lie" argument asserts election fraud. But of course there's no evidence of statistically meaningful fraud, even after desperate ages spent searching, so now you're defining "fraud" to include any allegations of improper influence.

But, no, I don't particularly give a crap about Hunter Biden. In fact, my personal policy is to not bother discussing Hunter Biden online with anyone who did not previously criticize Jared Kushner at least twice where I might see it; it defends my time from being wasted by hypocrites.

Wow! You are so smug and hypocritical that you can admit The Vote-scamming of the FBI which resulted in Biden's election but rationalize that something with Kushner makes that unimportant? We aren't just talking about Hunter Biden. We are discussing President Biden and his lies and crimes corroborated in the laptop and by testimony from business associates. Again, lies that hurt Trump at the ballot box. Illegally. You also admit that the Democrats, led by Hillary with FBI complicity made up lies about Trump, then lied on FISA applications to get approval to spy on Trump and his staff. Quite the paragon of virtue, you are. You may not give a crap - but that's because you are who you are. Why are still on this forum? Just give it up and go away, please.

[Tom]

I admitted nothing, actually, but pointed out that you have resorted to moving the goalposts due to a complete failure to substantiate claims of fraud. I'm not particularly interested in trying to convince you that these claims are false, either, as some of them are just tired rehashes of disproven claims that you've been trotting out for years.

[Wayward Son]

You have to remember that, because the chain of custody was broken when Hunter handed the laptop the computer repairman, when the story broke there was no way that anyone could be certain if the files on the laptop were from Hunter, the computer repairman, or someone else.  Anyone who claims otherwise was just guessing, or worse, and not being responsible.  Especially so close to an election.

In fact, I am sure that the FBI does not yet know if all the files on Hunter's laptop are actually his, or may have been added during the time the computer was in the repairman's custody.

[yossarian22c]

You have to remember that, because the chain of custody was broken when Hunter handed the laptop the computer repairman, when the story broke there was no way that anyone could be certain if the files on the laptop were from Hunter, the computer repairman, or someone else.  Anyone who claims otherwise was just guessing, or worse, and not being responsible.  Especially so close to an election.

In fact, I am sure that the FBI does not yet know if all the files on Hunter's laptop are actually his, or may have been added during the time the computer was in the repairman's custody.

Or if Hunter Biden was the person who handed the computer to the repair man to begin with. To my knowledge that fact has never been confirmed.

[Wayward Son]

Quick question, William (just to get this into the thread):  if 2000 Mules was such a devastating and accurate documentary, why did they use videos of people legally putting ballots in drop boxes as examples of ballot harvesting?

When the MSM does something like that, you'd claim it was deceptive videos, wouldn't you?  So why are you giving a pass to D'Souza?  And if they had so many examples of illegal vote harvesting, why did they have to resort to using examples of legal ballot drop-offs?  That's really stupid, isn't it?

[wmLambert]

You have to remember that, because the chain of custody was broken when Hunter handed the laptop the computer repairman, when the story broke there was no way that anyone could be certain if the files on the laptop were from Hunter, the computer repairman, or someone else.  Anyone who claims otherwise was just guessing, or worse, and not being responsible.  Especially so close to an election.

In fact, I am sure that the FBI does not yet know if all the files on Hunter's laptop are actually his, or may have been added during the time the computer was in the repairman's custody.

You are clueless about how chain of custody works. FYI: Chain of custody started when Hunter dropped off the computer and signed the contract. (Yes, that selfsame contract that explained how the lack of response after it was repaired caused it to become the legal property of John Paul Mac Isaac. When he went through it to see what he had inherited, he saw incriminating emails, text messages, photos and financial documents which he immediately sent to the authorities, and then he made copies of the hard drive, one of which he sent to Giuliani after the FBI showed no response. We now know why there was no response.

Quick question, William (just to get this into the thread):  if 2000 Mules was such a devastating and accurate documentary, why did they use videos of people legally putting ballots in drop boxes as examples of ballot harvesting?

When the MSM does something like that, you'd claim it was deceptive videos, wouldn't you?  So why are you giving a pass to D'Souza?  And if they had so many examples of illegal vote harvesting, why did they have to resort to using examples of legal ballot drop-offs?  That's really stupid, isn't it?

After they received heads ups from whistleblowers, they went to the government and asked for the legal videos that covered each ballot box, and also received the download of cellphone hits from each area. They matched the cellphones with the visibly same-looking people and found congruence with the phones and videos. The same people were dropping off lots of ballots and many different ballot boxes.

[wmLambert]

They were also taking photos of the ballots they were putting in and emailing to the Democrat ballot providers, which enabled them to get paid for each ballot. Why local law enforcement didn't arrest everyone catalogued, you'll just have to trake up with the law enforcement agencies. FBI should have, but didn't.

[msquared]

Definition of Chain of Custody.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

I think we would need more evidence that the repair shop had good enough security that it could be used as chain of evidence.  I have worked in computer repair shops and Chain of Custody would not qualify for any of those. Many people had access to the areas customers computers were stored in. Many people had keys to the areas that were locked at night (they were open during the day).

My presumption would be that any machine left for a period of time to qualify for the owner to claim it as his own would be that it was in easy access to almost any employee of the company.  Until it was turned over to the Police and cataloged, I think any lawyer worth his salt could get that idea tossed.

[Wayward Son]

You have to remember that, because the chain of custody was broken when Hunter handed the laptop the computer repairman, when the story broke there was no way that anyone could be certain if the files on the laptop were from Hunter, the computer repairman, or someone else.  Anyone who claims otherwise was just guessing, or worse, and not being responsible.  Especially so close to an election.

In fact, I am sure that the FBI does not yet know if all the files on Hunter's laptop are actually his, or may have been added during the time the computer was in the repairman's custody.

You are clueless about how chain of custody works. FYI: Chain of custody started when Hunter dropped off the computer and signed the contract. (Yes, that selfsame contract that explained how the lack of response after it was repaired caused it to become the legal property of John Paul Mac Isaac. When he went through it to see what he had inherited, he saw incriminating emails, text messages, photos and financial documents which he immediately sent to the authorities, and then he made copies of the hard drive, one of which he sent to Giuliani after the FBI showed no response. We now know why there was no response.

I'm sorry, William, but you have absolutely no clue about how a chain of custody works and it's purpose.  Here's a quick overview.  And here's the important part:

Under the law, an item will not be accepted as evidence during the trial—will not be seen by the jury—unless the chain of custody is an unbroken and fully documented trail without gaps or discrepancies. In order to convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against them must have been handled in a meticulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination.

(Emphasis mine.)

How "meticulous" was the repairman with the data on the computer?  Did he follows all legal rules of evidence?  Did he even know what those rules are?  What steps did he take to avoid tampering or contamination?  And how do we know that he didn't tamper or contaminate the evidence himself???

We don't know that now, and certainly no one knew it when the story broke.  Thus, it was (and is) irresponsible to state that everything the repairman says was on that computer came from Hunter Biden.  Anyone who did so is a lousy reporter.  And so it was responsible for the MSM NOT to report on the laptop just before the election beyond the basic facts, and certainly not on the supposed content of the laptop.

Quick question, William (just to get this into the thread):  if 2000 Mules was such a devastating and accurate documentary, why did they use videos of people legally putting ballots in drop boxes as examples of ballot harvesting?

When the MSM does something like that, you'd claim it was deceptive videos, wouldn't you?  So why are you giving a pass to D'Souza?  And if they had so many examples of illegal vote harvesting, why did they have to resort to using examples of legal ballot drop-offs?  That's really stupid, isn't it?

After they received heads ups from whistleblowers, they went to the government and asked for the legal videos that covered each ballot box, and also received the download of cellphone hits from each area. They matched the cellphones with the visibly same-looking people and found congruence with the phones and videos. The same people were dropping off lots of ballots and many different ballot boxes.

So, once again, if they had all these videos with the cellphone data, why did they use videos of those who were legally dropping off ballots?? 

It doesn't make sense.  If they had all this proof, why didn't they use it in the documentary?  Why did they use ones that were NOT proof of ballot harvesting?  It's like they didn't care if the ones they showed were real or not.  As long as it looked real, they used it, and hoped no one would find out one way or another.  It's like they didn't know.  And if they didn't know, how come you are so certain they knew?? 

Don't talk about how they supposedly did this or that.  Answer the question.  Why did they use videos of those who weren't breaking the law?

[msquared]

When asked to supply the evidence Truth the Vote claims to have about election "mules" in AZ they did not hand over the evidence to the authorities who asked for it.

https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2022/09/02/2000-mules-group-ignored-arizona-ags-requests-info?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&fbclid=IwAR05irrVc4wfd0fQIfYrITJiIYBVmwlBLwYMaJrNVnf3ywF-pyT5sMB_mxc

[TheDrake]

State of play: According to email correspondence the AG's office provided to Axios, they made four requests to True the Vote for a hard drive and other supposed evidence that the group claimed it had.

In a March 28 report, which the AG's office provided to Axios this week, True the Vote claimed it had provided state and federal law enforcement with testimonials from people involved in ballot harvesting in Arizona. Anderson said the AG's office has received no such testimonials.

"We have continually asked for information that has not been provided," Ryan Anderson, a spokesperson for the AG's office, said.

What else is new? More little lies supporting the Big Lie.

[msquared]

Every time Law Enforcement asks for the evidence none shows up.  Rusty Bowers in AZ said the same thing. He asked Giuliani several times for Trump's evidence of fraud it never shows up. Not general, our numbers guy says it is really unlikely, but the names and addresses of people they say they have.  And what they do supply is quickly debunked. Or they never supply it. For two years Mike Lindell has been saying he is going to show the evidence. And nothing.