It runs at about one and a half hours, is already slightly out of date, but provides an interesting pespective on the main controversy in American Politics today. Alternative links to the video if the above don't work for some reason: https://www.theepochtimes.com/2020-election-investigation-who-is-stealing-america_3617562.html https://www.youmaker.com/video/60bb93fa-d621-4d44-b9d0-420b9621cb57 Merry Christmas!
Looks like a bunch of "proof". If there was actual proof, why did none of Trump's lawyers actually allege fraud in court? Are his lawyers incompetent? Are the courts all corrupted as well? I watched the first 70 minutes so far and it seems like it's well produced to make it look like more than tin foil hat conspiracy theory. I think the answer is much simpler. If there's people willing to listen to a slant, money can be made being the face of that slant.
What makes you think they never alleged fraud in court? The simple fact is that little to none of the cases brought by Trump's lawyers, or lawyers like Sydney Powell that have no official connection to the Campaign, have even been heard to the point of looking at evidence; but rather tossed for "lack of standing" and other procedural technicalities. Whether the courts are "corrupt" or not may not even be an issue, if they are unwilling to look at the cases in the first place because they don't want to be "resposible" for determining an election. And in some cases (Pennsyvania Supreme Court for example) the high courts of those states are potentially liable for ignoring statutory laws in the first place, which would effectively make them both judge and defendant... so if SCOTUS doesn't want to look at it (and it seems like they don't, unfortunately for both parties), you can't even introduce the evidence you have to a fair court. You say it's not proof, but "proof." Yet you offer no explanation for the content of the information itself. Instead, you write it off as "conspiracy" and "tin-foil hat" baiting in order to make money (albeit off a freely provided film). But none of that speaks to the content of what's actually discussed. For example, one of the pieces of evidence mentioned in the documentary is a video of Georgia election workers pulling out containers of ballots after everyone else left, the time coincides with a report of a water line break (which turned out to be a deliberate lie) that caused most workers and, importantly, election observers, to be ushered out of that room. Within the timeframe of those events, the rather large lead that President Trump had in that county and the state overal quickly diminished, as a handful of workers counted ballots they had stored in secret without any oversight. What is your explenation for this sequence of events? That it simply didn't happen? Yet there are public records and verified video of it happening. That the video was somehow faked? There's no evidence to suggest that, and it came from preexisting security cameras in the building. That the count for Trump vs Biden in Georgia did not rapidly change during that time period? Contemporary news reports said it did. That this was all perfectly legitimate? Event setting aside the statistical anomolies, any election which cannot show the providence of it's ballots and maintain a proper chain of custody is inherently suspicious; pulling containers of ballots out from hidden locations shows a lack of verifiable custody, especially when done only after most staff and observers were told to leave under false pretenses.
Speaking of Georgia, for those of you that are interested, here is the link to todays (30th of Dec. 2020) livestream of Georgia's state legislature hearing on the election: https://www.legis.ga.gov/schedule/s...AqgAvxFoDAGeQLC1kSDdIixjC7EHFmfIAAAJaYgAAAA== (Actual content starts at 30 minutes and 20 seconds in.)
Strange that you say that. Personally, as someone that is not a resident of Georgia, I don't particularly give darn if either of them win or lose the election... so long as the election was conducted properly (both on Nov. 3rd and upcoming on Jan. 5th). Which, coincidentally, is the topic of this discussion; and the issue of the link to the hearing that you quoted. I'm curious, and admittedly doubtful, if you seriously watched it for any meaningful amount of time. Well, regardless, I wish you and yours a "Happy New Year", and as to the results, I'm sure we'll get to see what happens over the next couple weeks. Take care of yourself in the meantime.
TY Ohmin for these links, as an outsider looking in I have no political bias towards either candidate, but the sworn statements from credible witnesses is compelling. None of this has been reported by mainstream media here in Australia YET, which has eroded Trump's credibility to the point his claim's of voter fraud are considered as little more than a last desperate attempt to retain office. My concern is if further investigation should support these claims where do you go from here? The trail leads all the way to the Secretary of State, an ex director of the CIA not IRAN. "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." - Thomas Jefferson
Why do you think none of this has been reported by Australia's media? Is it a multinational conspiracy by media companies, Democrats, some Republicans, and the US Judicial system and China to ensure that Biden takes office over Trump? Or is it more likely that the proof provided is taken out of context to show a particular slant that lines up with the worldview taken by those few companies reporting it?
Which lawsuits actually allege fraud? This is the most complete list of lawsuits that I could find. https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia...ing_election_disputes,_lawsuits,_and_recounts As for what the videos show, release the entire footage, not just snippets and let people decide what is happening. Does it seem like what they claim? Sure, but without the full video we can't determine what is actually happening. As for a "freely provided film" every company has a business model. Most news outlets make money off of advertising. If an outlet is willing to report what other outlets aren't willing to, and there's people who want that view reported, then an outlet has a pretty well guaranteed set of views to sell to advertisers.
You're welcome L33Ch (also, I dig your avatar art). Australia is sadly not the only nation who's media (thus far) refuses to give proper coverage, so you're not alone in that. There are still many things unknown, at least to the public, so I can't really answer your question as fully as I'd like. What I can do is inform you of what processes can still be implimented at this time. Right now, until a couple days from now, it may be possible to "decertify" the results, either by the Governor of the State(s) in question recanting (which is unlikely), and/or the states electors being thrown out by the United States Congress during objections raised on the 6th (this Wednesday). This is a somewhat complicated process, enumerated in the Constitution and amended. I don't have the specific lines off hand. But the basics are that if a Representative raises an objection to a given State's electors, they need to be backed up by a Senator. If so, the two bodies must go to their respective buildings and debate for up to two hours whether or not those objections are valid. If the objections are found valid, than the state's electors get thrown out and are discounted. If, in the end, neither Presidential candidate gets over 270 Electoral Votes, than the Constitution demands that the House convene a special vote by State Delegation (a "delegation" is different from being a Representative), and each state gets one vote each. Like I said, it's complicated. It's also possible that the evidence to support these allegations of fraud come in after a Biden inauguration. At which point the primary remedy would be an Impeachment, though this may be complicated by the House being controlled currently by Democrats. If things get really crazy, and no President is inaugurated on the 21st, than the House will determine a "temporary" President of the United States until a proper one can be put into office. In the long term... there are many potential implications, based on the extent to which fraud was done, and whether it is discovered such systems and efforts of fraud were carried out in past elections (if any). For darklord48: Spoiler "Proof" and "evidence" are too different concepts, but I've mentioned that before. Tell me, how likely is it that over 1000 people would sign affidavits, under penalty of perjury, from all walks of life, different businesses and trades, stating that they saw improper conduct by voting. That a witness would come forward and provide not only first-hand account of the Secretary of State's people threatening them to certify their county but also offer documents of doing the same to other counties, again, under penalty of perjury, all for a "slant"? If you think it possible that people would like to cheat their way into office... surely than it's possible that others would have the same interest on the other side? How many different media companies do you know to exist? How many of them hold a stake in foreign media? How many of them have business ties to China? Personally, I don't think there's enough evidence to implicate China (at least not at this point)... but there's certainly more evidence of fraud in the 2020 election than there was of Russian Collusion in the 2016 election. Shouldn't the media companies give at least equal attention to that possibility? Do you think that media companies are "fair" or "honest"? Why? Certainly you don't trust the companies that are reporting on it, you say so yourself in your very next post. The Georgia State hearing was not provided to you through any media company. Indeed, it was not provided to you by any company whatsoever, but comes directly from the legislature of Georgia. In any event, if you wish to speak of probability... Statistically speaking, how likely is it to flip "heads" thousands of times consecutively? In Georgia and other states, the election ended up very close, within 1% in many cases. Roughly the equivalent of a coin toss in terms of ballots. Yet, overnight, there was a sudden surge of almost entirely Biden ballots (over 99%, even Washington DC doesn't vote that hard towards Democrats) in these states (where previously Trump had been ahead by several % points). What are the odds of that? I don't have a direct list on hand, unfortunately, however I know numerous ones, including by Sidney Powell, were alleging fraud but dismissed. Some may still be pending appeals. Perhaps, certainly I'm in favor of releasing the full video, I approve of transparency. Though I strongly suspect it will be produced eventually. However, if someone claims: "there is no evidence" then is shown video evidence... that already disproves their claim. Whether the video evidence is "conclusive" or not is for the individual to judge... ideally with full context. However, in the absence of that context... can you disprove what the video is alleged to show? There is a burden of proof on the accuser, this is very true. People should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. This, however, applies to witnesses as much as it applies to anyone else. If you are going to accuse a witness of lying under oath (committing perjury) you must prove it. Witness testimony corroborates the allegations of the video from the Arena, as does contemporary news reports by even those companies that currently deny any wrong doing (reporting that counting was "halted" and people escorted out of the arena on claims of a water line break that never happened). What evidence do you know of or possess that can properly dispute these allegations? For that matter, if the full video does, indeed, show something which disproves the allegations... why hasn't the Secretary of State (who claims to have seen the full video) released it to quell these allegations and prove, or at least provide evidence, for their claims that no impropriety was conducted there?
added YET to original statement but I did say IF the investigation should support those claims not when, although if u watched the whole 2nd video it appears the committee were less sceptical. I would assume as we return to normal after xmas/new year and more information begins to surface then MSM will begin to pick up on it here. As for conspiracy theories I'll leave that for the experts like Prof Hulk. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle
Rakshasa chilling in his smoking jacket ! Dave Trampier AD&D Monster Manual, TSR, 1977 Thanks for taking the time and effort to post all of that, the 1st link also had an interesting Frontline interview with Steve Bannon after it that I hadn't seen.
There has been a large amount of additional information on this topic since last I posted (which is not going away anytime soon it seems). First, a few days ago Mike Lindell of "My Pillow" fame put out a 2 hour length documentary, which was subsequently removed from at least two video streaming services (YouTube and Vimeo), but is still available here on Bit Chute: (not my channel, no idea what else is on it) https://www.*****ute.com/video/FwX3oxjHqhE2/ EDIT: *sigh*... apparently this forum is not a fan of Bit Chut... or female dogs. One would think that a profanity censor could tell the difference between whole words and partial words or even parts of a URL but... no... So... the URL for the video is as follows, minus any spacing: https://www.b i t c h u t e.com/videos/FxX3oxjHqhE2/ This reminds me of the time I tried to say "good night" to someone in chat while playing the now-defunct "Dark Spore" game... They censored the word "night" (and later I confirmed censoring of Nigeria... etc.) Anyway... /EDIT. For those that have more limited time on their hands, this 16-ish minut video was also recently put out: Not sure how long it'll be on YouTube so watch it there while you can, when I find a mirror I'll edit one in. As promised: https://rumble.com/vdp7df-share-unmasked-have-we-uncovered-the-truth-about-the-2020-election.html Looks like they took the YouTube copy down already as well. In the mean time, The Gateway Pundit published a recently released video that purports to show mysterious deliveries of boxes to one of the counting stations in Detroit: https://rumble.com/vdl4bt-exclusive...t-deliveries-of-thousands-of-illegal-bal.html For reasons I haven't yet discovered (didn't do much followup) The Gateway Pundit's Twitter account was apparently suspended and/or banned the following day. TGP has since released more video footage, claiming an "escort" vehicle of some sort: https://rumble.com/vdnucr-exclusive...scorting-late-night-biden-ballot-van-at-.html Finally, and unexpectedly, Time Magazine published a recent article on a "Shadowy Cabal" working in secret to pressure media, election rules, etc. before, during, and after the election, though from Time Magazine they claim this effort was to "save democracy." Read the article and make up your own mind here: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ I hope people find this informative. Have a good day.
Updated above post with a Rumble link for the "Unmasked" 17-ish minute video (once again, I have no knowledge nor particularly care about what else the hosting channel may have posted).
Mike Lindell put out a second video, a follow up to the previous "Absolute Proof" you can find above. This one called: "Scientific Proof", and you may find it here on Right Side Broadcastings' Rumble: https://rumble.com/vf8iq3-scientifi...raud-by-mike-lindell.html?mref=2oodx&mc=8wf7a Or both videos here on "Lindell TV": https://lindelltv.com/ Relatedly, according to interviews, Mr. Lindell is looking into creating new social media platforms, as yet another potential alternative to Twitter, YouTube, and other large websites which have garnered praise and scorn for it's censorship of opinions, person's, and voices that question their preferred narratives. When that may launch is not yet clear. Also relatedly, Dominion Voting Systems is suing him, alleging Libel/Slander. He's far from alone in being targetted by such a suit, though he may be the only one (that I'm aware of) that literally asked for it. On an unrelated note, his My Pillow company does sell a pretty good pillow, from all I've heard; and I do think there's a lot to be said for the success story of a man whom was once on the edge of ruin creating such a successful business, that someone can do so is one of the reasons why it's good to have hope for the future, both personal and impersonal. If he could do it, than maybe you or others you're worried at can too, yes?
All the "proof" so far is on the level of conspiracy theories, with grainy/incomplete footage, bad math, etc. I have yet to see anything that rises above the level of "well, this SEEMS weird so we must conclude the worst possible conclusion instead of entertaining a number of perfectly reasonable explanations." The lawsuits generally don't allege, fraud, in fact, one lawsuit specifically says this: Which basically means: "We can't prove fraud because it's undetectable, therefore, this is proof that there's fraud." In other cases, they say stuff... which are actually lies: with something that amounts to trivia even if it were ACTUALLY true (but it's not, Nixon won those 2 states and lost in 1960). And even if it were true, that isn't proof of fraud, it's just a fun fact. There's some illogical nonsense for ya. Trump was winning, therefore, all future votes should follow the same pattern and because they didn't... FRAUD! And also, Biden got more votes than Clinton, THAT'S FRAUD! How is it possible that people voted differently with different candidates in a different election in a different year? IMPOSSIBURU! Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...C9ko9nMd_SjdPpBfZf2LVWm4buff63X9T2CIwtpZZjU0E ~ You also had then AG Barr saying stuff like: "We indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected, from people who could vote. He made them out and voted for the person he wanted to. That kind of thing happens with mail-in Ballots." Which seems crazy right? That can't be allowed to happen! Except... that's not what happened. There was no such case trialed by the DOJ. The State of Texas did have a case against Miguel Hernandez, which had 700, not 1700 ballots signed by the same witness. He was ultimately given time served on a misdemeanor of "method of returning marked ballot." It's important to note that despite this, the ballots in question were for various candidates, with some also blank - so there is no indication that any fraud actually occurred. When the owners of the ballots were contacted by investigators, they said that the ballots appeared to be consistent with their choices. One of the investigators said that they initially suspected "potentially 1,700 fraudulent ballots, but we did not uncover that, at all." In other words, the US Attorney General - the highest prosecutor in the land, when wanting to give a concrete example of voter fraud... didn't know what he was talking about and got all the details wrong, and wasn't even aware that it wasn't his department that investigated this case. ~ Here's a set of good math video debunking some non-sense math someone did to show "irregularities" and therefore fraud:
All of it ? This suggests u at least watched the link provided (https://rumble.com/vf8iq3-scientifi...raud-by-mike-lindell.html?mref=2oodx&mc=8wf7a) and if so, why then this wall of mostly irrelevant details? This just looks like more disinformation to me. I will agree Dr Shiva (aka some guy - with 4 MIT degrees) is clearly pushing his own agenda's and the math in regards to scatter patterns is dubious at best. But in other matters his current court case does appear to have been viewed favorably by the judge - Happy to be corrected here as haven't had time to research his case yet. I will also agree that Benford's Law is not a useful statistical tool in this instance, requiring careful interpretation, but while I like Matt Parker the Stand-up Mathematician, he also is pushing his own agenda and I highly recommend his book Humble Pi. I also look forward to seeing him debunk Dr. Frank's algorithms or any credible peer review for that matter.
Maybe if they actually showed the numbers and analysis we could have something to talk about, but as it is it's just a bunch of nonsense and handwaving with no way to verify any of their claims. They say a lot of stuff, but show very little that can actually be analyzed independently - which is always a red flag with this stuff. If they spend most of their time talking about tangential stuff instead of the meat, it's usually not a good sign. This is a consistent pattern with this type of thing. Of course, this Dr Frank also is in on the anti-COVID train, unsurprisingly. Often, it's not that the data is incorrect or whatever, but that their conclusions are nonsense. For example, in this video of Dr Frank's: He tries to claim that because he can't use a SINGLE CURVE to determine the election results in every state, that this means that people "decided ahead of time" what the outcome of the state would be. What? To explain a little bit of what he is doing and how disingenuous he is being... What he is doing is taking the results of a number of counties that had similar voter turnout patterns, creating a curve, which he calls a "key" (the word usage is important, because it implies something artificial), and then saying, "See? These counties were rigged." And when a county doesn't fit, he says, "There's a good reason like a prison county" and brushes it off without much explanation. In other words, the data that fits his curve, he keeps. The data that's too far from his "key," he throws out and excuses it. So this means that whatever "key" he makes is cherry picked. Then he does it for several other states, and finds... not surprisingly, that their "key" is different (because he is not using the same subset of data, duh). And instead of accepting this as perfectly reasonable, he uses it to bulwark his conspiracy theory. You will also note his key doesn't actually fit perfectly in the counties they he is showing. Yes, it correlates WELL, but it doesn't fit all of them. Why? Because the key isn't real. The key is made up. He just took the data and found the line of best fit that "explains" the data. Anyone with any knowledge of statistical analytics knows that this is never proof of anything, it's just a line that explains the data AS PROVIDED. (I like how at the start he says, "I don't know why he sent these 9 counties." Oh, you absolutely know.) Is it that surprising that in states with dozens of counties, that you can find a bunch with similar voter turnout patterns? Not really. And in this case, they used 9 out of 83 counties. Oh, also, the whole thing is a circular argument anyway... he generates the "key" using the data... then using the key he says he can generate the data. Like, wtf? OF COURSE YOU CAN. ~ Look at these random numbers I generated. In column 3, I divided A by B. Notice how many are between 0.1 and 0.3. Using this 'key' of 0.2 and the value B, I can predict the value of A across many of these numbers. The ones that don't fit have good reason, so we can safely ignore those. This Is Unbelievable! Irrefutable! Fraud! ~ Dude is made of the same snake oil as all the others.
Oh, and what about the registrations vs population "problem?" There's a perfectly reasonable explanation. People move, but stay on registration records because of the archaic way in which US voter registration is done in most places. The Pew Trust estimated that 1 in 8 voter registrations are outdated/invalid/inaccurate, mostly due to the fact that people move, with 1 in 8 people moving in a 2 year period. https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/l...ets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf One of the main tactics of conspiracy theorists is taking mundane data or information with reasonable explanations, and ignoring those and pretending that the only conclusion you can make is that something nefarious is going on. And they keep harping on it, "look at this place, registrations are close to population" too! Which reinforces the original idea that it's fraud... except that they never proved it in the first place - they just stated a thing and then said, "look, here is the thing again!" ~ "Look, guys, the sun rose again, at about the same time each day. With such a chaotic universe, how is it possible that the sun rises so consistently? Look at this data for every day in March. The sun rose at roughly the same time. And look, I can generate a 'key' that allows me to predict when the sun will rise each day! This is proof that there's a supreme being moving the sun, because it couldn't possibly happen by chance. "
When you are doing fishing expeditions, everything can seem like evidence: Higher voter turnout than last election? Fraud because that's just weird! More people voted Democrat in 2020 than 2016? Fraud because that's just weird! Absentee ballots favored Democrats in 2020 with perfectly reasonable explanation? Fraud because that's just weird! Voter Registrations are close to population? Fraud because that's just weird! Voter Registrations don't match population patterns? Fraud because that's just weird! Data pattern in one county is similar to another county? Fraud because that's just weird! Data pattern in one county is dissimilar to another county? Fraud because that's just weird!
