[Roundy]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/02/trump-allies-urge-georgia-republicans-sit-out-senate-runoffs/3800126001/

This is hilarious. It's entirely possible that there are enough gullible Republicans in Georgia that this will actually cost them the runoffs. Hey Gov Kemp, regretting supporting Trump yet? lol

[stack]

You're going to have to do more than try to discredit Gateway Pundit by your personal incredulity.

You're going to have to do more to discredit your Attorney General who stated that the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.

In the last link we looked at they cited the Arizona GOP and Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar as their sources:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/investigation-100-ballot-sample-arizona-finds-3-ballots-deemed-fraudulent-favor-joe-biden-larger-audit-granted/



So, there are more sources that you need to discredit.

Easy to discredit: How does the guy know one ballot was "fraudulently" changed to Biden?

Ex-Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell Files Election Suits in ‘DISTRCOICT’ Court

"A lawyer who was dropped from President Donald Trump’s legal team filed typo-strewn lawsuits in Michigan and Georgia alleging massive election fraud.
The Michigan lawsuit, which was on the court website, was frequently marred by formatting problems that removed the spacing between words. For example: “TheTCFCenterwastheonlyfacilitywithinWayneCountyauthorizedtocountthe ballots.”

Lawsuits aren't dismissed for typos or OCR formatting errors. Sounds like coping to me.

Didn't say they were. But certainly exemplary of the kind of quality evidence at hand. You're joking about "coping", right? If you want to see coping, spend a few minutes watching this embarrassment:



Pretty much sums up the quality of eyewitness testimony in one fell swoop. I think Rudy had to double down on his coping meds after this debacle.

[Tom Bishop]

Easy to discredit: How does the guy know one ballot was "fraudulently" changed to Biden?

Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar says that an audit occurred on a small batch of ballots. Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar is a better source that an audit occurred than your unsourced personal opinion that one did not occur.

See that? A qualified source on my side and only your unsourced, unqualified personal opinion on your side.

You're joking about "coping", right? If you want to see coping, spend a few minutes watching this embarrassment:

Pretty much sums up the quality of eyewitness testimony in one fell swoop. I think Rudy had to double down on his coping meds after this debacle.

Explain why this witness is an invalid witness, please. If an insider or someone close to the event is claiming or suggesting that fraud is occurring it's a rather large red flag, regardless of whether you don't like their attitude.

[Rama Set]

Easy to discredit: How does the guy know one ballot was "fraudulently" changed to Biden?

Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar says that an audit occurred on a small batch of ballots. Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar is a better source that an audit occurred than your unsourced personal opinion that one did not occur.

See that? A qualified source on my side and only your unsourced, unqualified personal opinion on your side.

So all the courts and government officials saying there is no evidence of fraud are unsourced and unqualified?  Or are you just playing stupid games so look sillier when the Electoral College votes for Biden in 11 days?

You're joking about "coping", right? If you want to see coping, spend a few minutes watching this embarrassment:

Pretty much sums up the quality of eyewitness testimony in one fell swoop. I think Rudy had to double down on his coping meds after this debacle.

Explain why this witness is an invalid witness, please. If an insider or someone close to the event is claiming or suggesting that fraud is occurring it's a rather large red flag, regardless of whether you don't like their attitude.
[/quote]

A judge previously said that she was an untrustworthy witness.  She could not coherently explain either her job or the technicalities of her claims.  Giuliani asked her to shush and immediately tried to distance himself from her.  How is that for an explanation?

[Tom Bishop]

Already discussed. We looked at the claim that Barr said that there was no election fraud, and the claim that he said that was false.

Looks like the Barr story was false.

Article: https://mb.ntd.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_535184.html

A judge previously said that she was an untrustworthy witness.  She could not coherently explain either her job or the technicalities of her claims.  Giuliani asked her to shush and immediately tried to distance himself from her.  How is that for an explanation?

Where has a judge stated that she was untrustworthy. Quote? Who was it? Was the judge a liberal activist judge?

[Rama Set]

Already discussed. We looked at the claim that Barr said that there was no election fraud, and the claim that he said that was false.

Looks like the Barr story was false.

Article: https://mb.ntd.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_535184.html

Barr definitely said that he hasn't seen fraud enough to over turn the election, which is different than that Twitter statement.  I have not, nor is anyone else saying the finding is inconclusive, but you are only 5 days out from safe harbour, so tick tock... The head of election cybersecurity also said the election was safe as have numerous state-level election officials.  This has been stated again and again.

As for Powell's shitty lawsuit, it will not change the result of the election as a hand count agreed with machine tally.  So if there are defects in the machines, which there is no evidence of thus far, it is immaterial to the 2020 election.

[Rama Set]

Trump agrees that Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud yet: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528588-trump-hits-barr-over-voter-fraud-remarks-he-hasnt-looked

Wisconsin SC turns away another Trump suit: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/528605-wisconsin-supreme-court-turns-away-trumps-lawsuit

PA SC also tells the GOP to go fuck itself: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/528634-pennsylvania-supreme-court-refuses-to-halt-gop-defeat-in-election

Lawsuit launched alleging the GOP suppressed 200,000 voters: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/528511-lawsuit-alleges-200k-georgia-voters-were-wrongly-purged-from

Trump's lackey gets banned from the DOJ for trying deliver insider info to Trump: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-politics-elections-7624560e990ec55383a2a3e421c3a52e?s=09

[Tom Bishop]

In that article it says:

“He hasn’t done anything, so, he hasn’t looked. When he looks, he’ll see the kind of evidence that right now you are seeing in the Georgia Senate. They are going through hearings right now in Georgia and they are finding tremendous volumes,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “So, they haven’t looked very hard. Which is a disappointment, to be honest with you, because it's massive fraud.”

This isn't a statement from Barr that no evidence of election fraud was found. This is an inference you are making from something that Trump said in response to a question about what Barr has done about election fraud.

The DOJ spokesman said that no statement was made that no election fraud was found, and that the department has not concluded its investigation. That sentiment was false.

[Rama Set]

In that article it says:

“He hasn’t done anything, so, he hasn’t looked. When he looks, he’ll see the kind of evidence that right now you are seeing in the Georgia Senate. They are going through hearings right now in Georgia and they are finding tremendous volumes,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “So, they haven’t looked very hard. Which is a disappointment, to be honest with you, because it's massive fraud.”

This isn't a statement from Barr that no evidence of election fraud was found. This is an inference you are making from something that Trump said in response to a question about what Barr has done about election fraud.

Which was prompted by Barr's statement, quoted in the AP article.  Giuliani also commented on it.

The DOJ spokesman said that no statement was made that no election fraud was found, or that the department has concluded its investigation. That sentiment was false.

The DOJ spokesperson is obfuscating what was actually said:

...to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.

https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

[stack]

In that article it says:

“He hasn’t done anything, so, he hasn’t looked. When he looks, he’ll see the kind of evidence that right now you are seeing in the Georgia Senate. They are going through hearings right now in Georgia and they are finding tremendous volumes,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “So, they haven’t looked very hard. Which is a disappointment, to be honest with you, because it's massive fraud.”

This isn't a statement from Barr that no evidence of election fraud was found. This is an inference you are making from something that Trump said in response to a question about what Barr has done about election fraud.

The DOJ spokesman said that no statement was made that no election fraud was found, and that the department has not concluded its investigation. That sentiment was false.

All the direct quotes from Barr are here - It is not an inference - Not sure where you are making that up from - More desperate coping I suspect:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/politics/william-barr-voter-fraud.html

And DJT saying he hasn't done anything doesn't mean anything.

[Tom Bishop]

It just says that "Attorney General William P. Barr said he had not seen fraud 'on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'"

DOJ Spokesperson said that the department is not saying that no fraud occurred, and that the investigation is still open.

So it's an ongoing investigation, and whatever the DOJ was looking at recently wasn't widespread enough to affect the election results. This is contrary to the claims that "Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud" or that the DOJ concluded that there was no fraud. Case is ongoing. No conclusion yet. There is no claim that no fraud occurred. Barr just claimed that they haven't tallied up enough fraud to affect the election yet.

Pretty poor effort to claim that this is a conclusion or decision from the DOJ.

[Rama Set]

It just says that "Attorney General William P. Barr said he had not seen fraud 'on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'"

DOJ Spokesperson said that the department is not saying that no fraud occurred, and that the investigation is still open.

Which is all anyone has said.

So it's an ongoing investigation, and whatever the DOJ was looking at recently wasn't widespread enough to affect the election results. This is contrary to the claims that "Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud" or that the DOJ concluded that there was no fraud. Case is ongoing. No conclusion yet. There is no claim that no fraud occurred.

I haven't said Barr said there was no fraud, have you?  Pretty much everyone agrees that fraud on a small scale can and does exist.  Pretty much everyone also agrees that fraud on the scale that has been alleged by Trump et. al. does not exist, so what the hell are you on about?

[honk]

It just says that "Attorney General William P. Barr said he had not seen fraud 'on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'"

Which is in stark contrast to Trump, Wood, Powell, and the other numerous pro-Trump personalities you've been citing, all of whom are absolutely certain that Trump actually won in a landslide and there's tons of evidence proving it. Barr is far from neutral or tempered in his support of Trump's partisan and personal interests. If there were even a shred of plausibility to these conspiracy theories, Barr would be enthusiastically advocating for and throwing the full might of his department behind them.

[Tom Bishop]

Which is all anyone has said.

Not you.

Trump agrees that Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud yet

And not the media sources which are implying it in their headlines.

Barr: No election fraud evidence - https://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2020/12/barr-no-election-fraud-evidence/

Barr Says No Election Fraud Has Been Found By Federal Authorities - https://www.npr.org/2020/12/01/940819896/barr-says-no-election-fraud-has-been-found-by-federal-authorities

Barr Confirms The Obvious: No Fraud in 2020 Election - https://www.essence.com/articles/william-barr-voter-fraud-election-2020/

It was also implied that this was some kind of official declaration about what the DOJ found after an investigation. This would be incorrect. The investigation is ongoing.

[stack]

Which is all anyone has said.

Not you.

Trump agrees that Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud yet

And not many media sources implying in their headlines.

Barr: No election fraud evidence - https://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2020/12/barr-no-election-fraud-evidence/

Barr Says No Election Fraud Has Been Found By Federal Authorities - https://www.npr.org/2020/12/01/940819896/barr-says-no-election-fraud-has-been-found-by-federal-authorities

Barr Confirms The Obvious: No Fraud in 2020 Election - https://www.essence.com/articles/william-barr-voter-fraud-election-2020/

It was also implied that this was some kind of official declaration about what the DOJ found after an investigation. This would be incorrect. The investigation is ongoing.

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? From the NPR article you cited which is pretty much the same everywhere:

"Attorney General William Barr said federal authorities have not uncovered any widespread fraud that might have affected the outcome of the 2020 election"

"...that might have affected the outcome of the 2020 election"

How many times does that have to be repeated for you to get it?

[Tom Bishop]

What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I clearly stated that the headline suggests that no fraud was found. Then you tried to claim that I was talking about something else about the article. This duplicitous approach to discussion doesn't really work for you.

[stack]

What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I clearly stated that the headline suggests that no fraud was found. Then you tried to claim that I was talking about something else.

So sayeth the headline. Then one reads the article and it says, "Attorney General William Barr said federal authorities have not uncovered any widespread fraud that might have affected the outcome of the 2020 election"

Isn't that the matter at hand? That there has been fraud that affected the election outcome? Or are Guiliani, Powell & Lynn running around just wanting to point out that there was fraud, but it didn't impact the outcome. C'mon. Have a smidge of integrity in all of this.

[Rama Set]

Which is all anyone has said.

Not you.

Awww, you are so cute.  I have said what Barr's position is many times, and the one time I failed to type it all out you jump on all over it.  If only it means that there is evidence of widespread fraud.  Too bad it doesn't.  Trump lost in a fair and freely held election.  Wamp wamp.

And not the media sources which are implying it in their headlines.

Barr: No election fraud evidence - https://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2020/12/barr-no-election-fraud-evidence/

Barr Says No Election Fraud Has Been Found By Federal Authorities - https://www.npr.org/2020/12/01/940819896/barr-says-no-election-fraud-has-been-found-by-federal-authorities

Barr Confirms The Obvious: No Fraud in 2020 Election - https://www.essence.com/articles/william-barr-voter-fraud-election-2020/

It was also implied that this was some kind of official declaration about what the DOJ found after an investigation. This would be incorrect. The investigation is ongoing.

The DOJ said the investigation is ongoing and Barr said they haven't found anything that could turn over the election.  We agree?  Trump still losing?  Many delegates pledged for him?  Lost the popular vote by 8M votes?  He lost by a landslide?  Sounding familiar?

I look forward to the next tweet you trot out as super powerful evidence of fraud in counties that don't exist.

[AATW]

What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I clearly stated that the headline suggests that no fraud was found. Then you tried to claim that I was talking about something else about the article. This duplicitous approach to discussion doesn't really work for you.

*sigh*

This is just you playing silly semantic games again, like with the "President Elect" thing.
I mean, technically you're right but in a completely pointless way.
Trump's claim is not simply that fraud occurred but that widespread fraud occurred that stole the election from him.
That's what Barr is calling bullshit on.
You're just excitedly saying "Aha! But he didn't say there was no fraud". Well what of it? Some low level of fraud occurs in every election.
But unless someone can show* that widespread fraud has occurred in 2020, the sort that could actually change the result, then so what?

*and by "show" I don't mean ALL CAPS TWEETS or witnesses whose ridiculous claims aren't getting anywhere in court.
These farcical hearings where no-one is under oath and can thus claim what they like are meaningless.

[Rama Set]

It hasn’t even been mentioned what a twat this guy is:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/democrats-file-bar-complaint-against-trump-campaign-lawyer-for-blatant-threat/