"What im looking for in a case of fraud is for a walkthrough of who did it, what they did, explanation of how it affected the election ,with supporting data/evidence that can be reviewed independently to support the claim."

Fair enough. I agree that nothing presented has met that standard.

When you say "reviewed independently" that is a difficult hurdle. Who is independent? There isn't some neutral organization that reviews these things.So we should probably remove that from the list.

"Who did it". Why is this important to prove malfeasance? It does matter who did it from a retribution perspective, but not from a "proof of action" standard. So we can remove that.

So we are left with "what they did", "how it affected the election" and "With supporting data/evidence"

I think there are numerous claims out there that meet this criteria.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by oklahogjr

Gold Membership

Member since Jan 2010

36765 posts

Posted on 9/11/21 at 1:13 am to 10thyrsr

quote:
When you say "reviewed independently" that is a difficult hurdle. Who is independent? There isn't some neutral organization that reviews these things.So we should probably remove that from the list.

So this is an area where mike lindell did well. He had opposition there prepared to review his pcap data. There were plenty of people willing to provide their expertise and verify real data evidence.

quote:
Who did it". Why is this important to prove malfeasance? It does matter who did it from a retribution perspective, but not from a "proof of action" standard. So we can remove that.

I don't need s name and serial number but if we truly find fraud there will be evidence of someone's involvement.

quote:
So we are left with "what they did", "how it affected the election" and "With supporting data/evidence"

I think there are numerous claims out there that meet this criteria.

There are not though. Pick one and let's review.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board