He called fraud just as soon as evidence of fraud started happening. The fraud started happening before the counting was finishing. A lot of the ongoing counting was part of the fraud, covering for the fraud, buying time for the fraud to be perpetuated.
Anything out of the ordinary, such as a ceasing of vote counting, is sufficient probable cause for floating the idea fraud may be in progress.
Always? This is the first time in history this many mail-ins were enabled in swing states. In my own state, we've been using mail ins for a long time now. The state has been blue ever since, i'm told. For example, when i went in to vote in person, i found out they had sent a ballot to an old address (i didn't ask for it), and it was returned (i never saw it). Ok. Fine. Was it shredded? Or was it put into a pile of returns, to be filled out by fraudsters if i didn't show up on election day?
Fine, count for days. What is the use of counting fraudulent ballots? Or, why put counterparty overseers out of the room? How many of the mail ins were fraudulent? How many of the signatures matched? Didn't match? No one knows.
Therefor, we have mainly to go by the pre-elections levels of enthusiasm, and exit polls. For example, prior to the vote, 32% of Michiganians indicated they would vote. 56% of Pensylvanians, according to some states i saw on Dick Morris site, posted prior to election. Then Michigan gets an unprecedented 90% turn out? When all of the pre-election enthusiasm was pointing toward Trump?
If i recall, Rudy spoke in defense of Trump at the latest impeachment hearing, which the majority of Senators agreed with that the Dems were pretending to have something they had no proof for.
Amy might remand it to state legislatures.
If polls are your evidence of election fraud then Trump's victory in 2016 was fraud haha
I know from your posts you are smarter than that...
Last edited: