BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

This blows the whole narrative pic.twitter.com/kp2RiF40Y7

— Ben Wah (@benjaminwah2016) June 6, 2022

On January 6, they opened the doors of the Capitol to let people in and a police officer shot and killed an unarmed woman

But they called this an insurrection and more people shed tears over this in front of the tv cameras than they did over the Uvalde school shooting. .

---

Not posting this for you since you are a bot account that . . . once again . . , posted 500 times the night of the 2020 election which is not possible. And you have never even tried to explain how it could be possible . . . because it isn't and therefore you can't.


But for others since this BF2 account keeps wanting to talk about 2,000 Mules in dozens of threads let me lay out some facts about this "film"

- Directed by Dinesh D'Souza, who himself plead guilty to FELONY election fraud. Again HE PLED GUILTY. He admitted he knew he was breaking the law and he did it intentionally, And was pardoned by Donald Trump. So yeah, that's a great source for someone doing a documentary on election fraud on behalf of Donald Trump. No issues there at all.
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/news/press-releases/dinesh-dsouza-sentenced-in-manhattan-federal-court-to-five-years-of-probation-for-campaign-finance-fraud

- Zero evidence was provided in the film or by the group (Salem Media) that the ballots themselves were fraudulent. In fact the promoter of the film affirmatively said that. So BF2 continually asserts that the election was stolen with fake ballots which isn't even what the film itself says

Quote:

---

The group has not presented any evidence that the ballots themselves as opposed to their delivery were improper. "I want to make very clear that we're not suggesting that the ballots that were cast were illegal ballots. What we're saying is that the process was abused,"

---

- The allegation is that Democrats used "mules" to improperly bring legal (I guess) ballots and drop them off at ballot boxes - which by the way isn't even a crime in most states. The basis of this from the group creating the film is tracking IMEI cell phone data to show folks associated with these numbers were visiting ballot boxes. Two problems of course.
- First, anyone who knows anything about cell phone data knows it's not precise enough to identify visiting a particular ballot box. It couldn't even tell you what side of the street you were on. These people literally could have driven by the box multiple times over the two week period.
- Second, IMEI numbers are 15 digits. The numbers presented as "proof" are all 20 digits with lots of xxxxx's. Producers claim it's to "obfuscate the numbers." Shocking. Why is it that when asked to present "actual proof" these election conspiracy nuts always fail to deliver? I wonder.

- Speaking of failing to deliver proof, the producers claim eye witnesses. They claim video tape. They present none of it. NONE. Here's the statement from the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.

Quote:

---

"What has not been provided is any other kind of evidence that ties these cellphones to ballot harvesting," the bureau said in a letter. "For example, there are no statements of witnesses and no names of any potential defendants to interview." It added that while the group had said it had "a source" who could validate such findings, "despite repeated requests that source has not been provided."

---

So the movie, in summary, is a bunch of crap. The "proof" doesn't exist. And this BF2 account spewing memes and tweets from convicted felon D'Souza isn't anything more than the Big Lie in a new package. Credit that line to The NY Times. Here's their write up on this film. I'll breathlessly await the detailed rebuttal from the Russians who post here and pretend to be US citizens..

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/us/politics/2000-mules-trump-conspiracy-theory.html

---

Actually, ballot harvesting is limited and/or illegal in most states. CA changed the law a few years back to allow it.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state

I'm not commenting on what did or did not happen in 2020 or the D'Souza film which I have not seen (and have no intention of watching). But there are reasons ballot harvesting is illegal or controversial, as outlined in the article below.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ballot-harvesting-collection-absentee-voting-explained-rules/

Here is an editorial discussing what has happened in So Cal where newly legalized harvesting swung several elections to the dems in 2018 and then what happened when the republicans responded.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-ballot-harvest-boomerang-11603149062

Regarding these hearings . . . I predict it will be a big circle jerk like the impeachment hearings. The left/woke crowd will be outraged, self righteous, and inflamed. The vast majority of people won't pay attention/care (or will care far less than they do about the economy and other current events).

---

I am willing to concede it's possible that there was massive voter fraud perpetrated by Republicans in 2020, but election fraud felon D'Souza failed to establish that. The fact that a bunch of brain dead Republicans are apoplectic over the fact that their messiah lost an election is not evidence of voter fraud.

I do think we should continue to focus on hardening our election systems to prevent Republican election fraud in future elections. I would start by outlawing doors, since that is at the top of the Republican wish list and they seem to be operating in good faith.

---

Man - if that's your response to what I wrote about the issue of ballot harvesting (with an article describing how both parties have done it), then you're a hopeless partisan. But we knew that. If you think ballot harvesting is a good idea, you could have just responded as such. Instead we get partisan attacks.

And its funny you refer to brain dead republicans when to this day, HRC, Abrams and their minions are still claiming they lost the 2016 elections due to fraud and/or "Russian interference." Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that only republicans gerrymander.

Separately, for those who might care to read something outside the BI bubble, here are interesting perspectives from two never Trump conservative commentators.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/yes-democrats-are-blowing-it/

The above article references this one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/trump-republicans-coup.html

---

Just more partisan attacks from a shameless partisan. You don't need to go out of your way to give credibility to ridiculous election fraud claims but you still do. There is zero reason to believe that democrat harvesting exceeds Republican harvesting. Zero. More Republicans have been convicted of voter fraud in connection with 2020 than Democrats, but the numbers are tiny and inconsequential.

And it's risible to talk about Abrams or Clinton in the context of Trump. Trump literally put out a video claiming that he won in a landslide and that the election was stolen in January 2021. Clinton conceded the day after the election. Trump fomented an insurrection and tried to convince states to send fraudulent electors. Clinton didn't do that. Trump and his team of morons came up with numerous schemes to have Pence not certify election results. Clinton disappeared to NY and has mostly stayed out of the spotlight. Trump continues to hold rallies where he claims he won the election and 76% of Republicans believe that he won and that Biden stole it. 76%! Democrats aren't talking about 2016 but you still are.

You know all of this but still raise harvesting as if it somehow contributed to Trump's loss.

Forgive me if your lecture falls on deaf ears.

helltopay1 said:

---

These hearings would make the old Soviet Union show trials blush.......Stalin had it right when he famously said, 'American liberals are useful idiots." Stalin was evil.....But, he knew idiots when he saw them....

---

As I recall, you said the same thing about the Benghazi Hearings…oh, maybe that wasn't you.

For your further education:

"The Jan. 6 committee plan is to argue:

Trump spread false information about the 2020 election.

Trump tried to install loyalists at the DOJ so the department would "support his fake election claims."

Trump pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to help overturn the election.

Trump urged on state election officials and legislators to change the election results.

Trump's legal team "instructed Republicans in multiple states to create false electoral slates and transmit those slates to Congress and the National Archive."

Trump summoned and assembled the mob in D.C. and directed them to march on the Capitol.

Trump ignored pleas for assistance from his team and failed to take action to stop the violence."

The Jan. 6 committee's plan to prove Trump's culpability


https://www.axios.com/2022/06/10/jan-6-committee-plan-trump-culpability

*My guess is that all of those charges are easily provable beyond a reasonable doubt. I sure hope a jury ultimately decides tRump's fate and that they don't cop out with any "for the good of the country" or "the case is not winnable" nonsense.

Trump tore into the Jan. 6 hearing in a series of posts on Truth Social last night and this morning:

"The so-called 'Rush on the Capitol' was not caused by me, it was caused by a Rigged and Stolen Election!" https://t.co/gF6WO1sFcT

— Axios (@axios) June 10, 2022

“Not only did Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the US government to instruct that the Capitol be defended. He did not call his Secretary of Defense. He did not talk to his AG. He did not talk to DHS… “ pic.twitter.com/fRSilQH0LE

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2022

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And its funny you refer to brain dead republicans when to this day, HRC, Abrams and their minions are still claiming they lost the 2016 elections due to fraud and/or "Russian interference." Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that only republicans gerrymander.

---

My understanding is that the Abrams complaint has to do with the fact that her opponent was in charge of elections.
And that as a result Georgia did tricks to limit the Abrams turnout, like long lines to vote in black neighborhoods.

My understanding is that Hillary's complaint is because of Russia involvement online in favor of Trump.

Calling everything "fraud" - describing the complaints that way- would not be accurate.

Is that how they've described it?
Can you show me proof?

---

The difference is that Clinton and Abrams never filed a bunch of lawsuits or tried to pressure Secretaries of State with the intent of overturning the result. Whatever they said was political rhetoric intended to call attention to a problem (Russian attempts to influence American elections, voter suppression in Georgia, etc.). There was no mob storming the Capitol after Hillary lost.

Maybe you could argue that their language is out of bounds too. Maybe. But it's not anywhere near equivalent to Trump's words and actions.

BearGreg said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Prime Time Public Hearings begin this Thursday at 5PM.
There will be a total of six public hearings, set for June 13, 15, 16, 21, and 23.

Interestingly enough, the DoJ recently announced that it will not prosecute Trump former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows or Dan Scavino for contempt of Congress.

The decision by the DoJ is puzzling at best, since there is no executive privilege involved and it sets a poor precedent given that it could embolden other Trump associates facing similar requests not to cooperate.

This news came the same day that White House trade advisor Peter Navarro was indicted for failing to cooperate with the Committee.

---

Please post a link

---

DOJ declines to charge Meadows and Scavino with contempt of Congress - CNNPolitics

Justice Department will not prosecute Mark Meadows (yahoo.com)

US DOJ declines to charge ex-Trump officials Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino Peter Navarro is charged | Daily Mail Online

DOJ Declines to Prosecute Meadows, Scavino, Dealing Blow to Jan. 6 Committee (breitbart.com)

Adam Schiff Says It's 'Puzzling' DOJ Didn't Prosecute Meadows and Scavino (businessinsider.com)

DOJ Won't Charge Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino For Contempt Of Congress | HuffPost Latest News

US justice department declines to charge former Trump officials Meadows and Scavino with contempt of Congress | US news | The Guardian

DiabloWags said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And its funny you refer to brain dead republicans when to this day, HRC, Abrams and their minions are still claiming they lost the 2016 elections due to fraud and/or "Russian interference." Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that only republicans gerrymander.

---

And it's risible to talk about Abrams or Clinton in the context of Trump. Trump literally put out a video claiming that he won in a landslide and that the election was stolen in January 2021. Clinton conceded the day after the election. Trump fomented an insurrection and tried to convince states to send fraudulent electors. Clinton didn't do that. Trump and his team of morons came up with numerous schemes to have Pence not certify election results. Clinton disappeared to NY and has mostly stayed out of the spotlight. Trump continues to hold rallies where he claims he won the election and 76% of Republicans believe that he won and that Biden stole it. 76%! Democrats aren't talking about 2016 but you still are.

You know all of this but still raise harvesting as if it somehow contributed to Trump's loss.

Forgive me if your lecture falls on deaf ears.

---

It's really hard to believe that BearGoggles is a Cal grad.
That's not a personal attack.
It's an observation.

Clinton clearly didnt file any lawsuits or pressure Secretaries of State into overturning election results.
She conceded within 24 hours of the election results and literally disappeared from the public eye aside from a tweet or two. It's amazing that a Cal grad is so incredibly "blind" to this.

---

tRump sealed HRC off from that avenue when during the 1st debate he said the Election was going to be rigged and HRC took the bait and said, "No, you have to accept the results of the Election, no matter what."

Yes, tRump knew the Election was rigged all right (and I told my wife that after Hill gave her response). As we learned from Mary Trump, tRump has a "tell": He has always accused others of the bad conduct that he engages in.

DiabloWags said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And its funny you refer to brain dead republicans when to this day, HRC, Abrams and their minions are still claiming they lost the 2016 elections due to fraud and/or "Russian interference." Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that only republicans gerrymander.

---

And it's risible to talk about Abrams or Clinton in the context of Trump. Trump literally put out a video claiming that he won in a landslide and that the election was stolen in January 2021. Clinton conceded the day after the election. Trump fomented an insurrection and tried to convince states to send fraudulent electors. Clinton didn't do that. Trump and his team of morons came up with numerous schemes to have Pence not certify election results. Clinton disappeared to NY and has mostly stayed out of the spotlight. Trump continues to hold rallies where he claims he won the election and 76% of Republicans believe that he won and that Biden stole it. 76%! Democrats aren't talking about 2016 but you still are.

You know all of this but still raise harvesting as if it somehow contributed to Trump's loss.

Forgive me if your lecture falls on deaf ears.

---

It's really hard to believe that BearGoggles is a Cal grad.
That's not a personal attack.
It's an observation.

Clinton clearly didnt file any lawsuits or pressure Secretaries of State into overturning election results.
She conceded within 24 hours of the election results and literally disappeared from the public eye aside from a tweet or two. It's amazing that a Cal grad is so incredibly "blind" to this.

---

Don't mistake bad faith for lack of intelligence. BG is a smart guy who went to Cal. He knows he's posting disingenuous garbage. Don't let him off the hook.

Not sure it's worth going further down the "is ballot harvesting illegal" rat hole as that's not really the main point I was making about this "film." The main point being that D'Souza is a convicted felon who made a movie on behalf of the guy who pardoned him for his personal election fraud.

That movie purports to have bombshell cell phone location evidence - evidence that doesn't actually prove anyone got closer than 100 feet to these ballot boxes. And that D'Souza and his fellow producers claim eye witness testimony and video evidence that (shockingly) they can never actually produce for government investigators. Why they made a movie rather than take their "proof" to court and actually do something with it. They didn't because they can't because it's all BS.

That's the point.

But if we do want to talk ballot harvesting's illegality, here's the exact quote from The NY Times article I posted above.

Quote:

---

A repeated contention of the documentary is that getting paid to deliver other peoples' ballots is illegal in every state. Mr. D'Souza emailed The New York Times a citation to a federal statute that outlaws getting paid to vote and does not discuss delivering other people's ballots. Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, appears in the movie agreeing that the practice is outlawed nationwide, but in 2019 he wrote that it was "perfectly legal" in some states for "political guns-for-hire" to collect ballots. (Asked about the discrepancy, Mr. von Spakovsky said he believed the practice is illegal based on federal law.)

The swing states where Mr. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht focused their research do ban the delivery of ballots on behalf of others, with some exceptions. But elections officers in 16 other states surveyed by The Times said their states did not prohibit people getting paid to deliver a ballot. Some of those states limit how many ballots an individual can deliver, or bar campaigns from doing so.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Not sure it's worth going further down the "is ballot harvesting illegal" rat hole as that's not really the main point I was making about this "film." The main point being that D'Souza is a convicted felon who made a movie on behalf of the guy who pardoned him for his personal election fraud.

That movie purports to have bombshell cell phone location evidence - evidence that doesn't actually prove anyone got closer than 100 feet to these ballot boxes. And that D'Souza and his fellow producers claim eye witness testimony and video evidence that (shockingly) they can never actually produce for government investigators. Why they made a movie rather than take their "proof" to court and actually do something with it. They didn't because they can't because it's all BS.

That's the point.

But if we do want to talk ballot harvesting's illegality, here's the exact quote from The NY Times article I posted above.

Quote:

---

A repeated contention of the documentary is that getting paid to deliver other peoples' ballots is illegal in every state. Mr. D'Souza emailed The New York Times a citation to a federal statute that outlaws getting paid to vote and does not discuss delivering other people's ballots. Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, appears in the movie agreeing that the practice is outlawed nationwide, but in 2019 he wrote that it was "perfectly legal" in some states for "political guns-for-hire" to collect ballots. (Asked about the discrepancy, Mr. von Spakovsky said he believed the practice is illegal based on federal law.)

The swing states where Mr. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht focused their research do ban the delivery of ballots on behalf of others, with some exceptions. But elections officers in 16 other states surveyed by The Times said their states did not prohibit people getting paid to deliver a ballot. Some of those states limit how many ballots an individual can deliver, or bar campaigns from doing so.

---

---

BG knows that there is no reason to believe that any illegal harvesting would have benefited democrats more than republicans. 2000 Dead Horses doesn't change that.

As Bill Barr told Trump, it's all bullsh$t.

Sebastabear said:

---

The main point being that D'Souza is a convicted felon who made a movie on behalf of the guy who pardoned him for his personal election fraud.

---

No conflict of interest there, eh?

Nice misinformation. Your Clown Car Party's got nothing, so you all resort to bullshyte like this. Which of your handlers sent you the link (I'm sure they included finely detailed instructions with short words on how to copy and paste)? Poso? Tucker? Charlie? The RNC?

Do you know the kind of tRumpist I have no argument with?

The kind that admits that tRump is an unethical self promoter of limited intelligence BUT that he promotes political policies that they agree with and support so they vote for him (don't get me wrong, I disagree with "the end justifies the means" type of people, but at least they are being honest)

Have you ever met a tRumpist like that? I never have. Why?

Because most people like to believe that they are decent human beings and it is much easier to feel that way about yourself if you are a tRump supporter if you delude yourself into believing that any facts tending to prove tRump is unethical and all around horrible person are simply false.

The funny thing about the right wing talking about freedom of speech is they believe they can lie or tell the truth and everybody else can't speak at all.

My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings. pic.twitter.com/MBNTSNe4Z8

— Travis Allen (@TravisAllen02) June 10, 2022

AunBear89 said:

---

Nice misinformation. Your Clown Car Party's got nothing, so you all resort to bullshyte like this. Which of your handlers sent you the link (I'm sure they included finely detailed instructions with short words on how to copy and paste)? Poso? Tucker? Charlie? The RNC?

---

In other words: "Durrrrrrr - we got nothin' but stupid memes and dumb videos. FREEDUMB!"

dajo9 said:

---

The funny thing about the right wing talking about freedom of speech is they believe they can lie or tell the truth and everybody else can't speak at all.

My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings. pic.twitter.com/MBNTSNe4Z8

— Travis Allen (@TravisAllen02) June 10, 2022

---

Many Reddit forums are like that.

The @January6thCmte edited @nickquested's footage deliberately to deceive the American public.

Footage of protestors trying to save Roseanne Boyland's life and of their scolding the police for murdering Ashli Babbitt was removed because it doesn't support the official narrative. pic.twitter.com/eTACtkDiBL

— Joseph D. McBride, Esq. (@McBrideLawNYC) June 10, 2022

The death of Roseanne Boyland.

This may not be up on Twitter for long.

DiabloWags said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

In other words: "Durrrrrrr - be we got nothin' but stupid memes and dumb videos. FREEDUMB!"

---

Well . . . he is from North Dakota.

---

You should stop spreading fake news.

Takeaways:

The Proud Boys like tacos
Ivanka is still beautiful
Liz Cheney is a drone
There were NO guns
4 protesters died; no cops died https://t.co/vfJOrUkwm0

— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) June 10, 2022

So far, this is what we know to be true.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

This blows the whole narrative pic.twitter.com/kp2RiF40Y7

— Ben Wah (@benjaminwah2016) June 6, 2022

On January 6, they opened the doors of the Capitol to let people in and a police officer shot and killed an unarmed woman

But they called this an insurrection and more people shed tears over this in front of the tv cameras than they did over the Uvalde school shooting. .

---

Not posting this for you since you are a bot account that . . . once again . . , posted 500 times the night of the 2020 election which is not possible. And you have never even tried to explain how it could be possible . . . because it isn't and therefore you can't.


But for others since this BF2 account keeps wanting to talk about 2,000 Mules in dozens of threads let me lay out some facts about this "film"

- Directed by Dinesh D'Souza, who himself plead guilty to FELONY election fraud. Again HE PLED GUILTY. He admitted he knew he was breaking the law and he did it intentionally, And was pardoned by Donald Trump. So yeah, that's a great source for someone doing a documentary on election fraud on behalf of Donald Trump. No issues there at all.
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/news/press-releases/dinesh-dsouza-sentenced-in-manhattan-federal-court-to-five-years-of-probation-for-campaign-finance-fraud

- Zero evidence was provided in the film or by the group (Salem Media) that the ballots themselves were fraudulent. In fact the promoter of the film affirmatively said that. So BF2 continually asserts that the election was stolen with fake ballots which isn't even what the film itself says

Quote:

---

The group has not presented any evidence that the ballots themselves as opposed to their delivery were improper. "I want to make very clear that we're not suggesting that the ballots that were cast were illegal ballots. What we're saying is that the process was abused,"

---

- The allegation is that Democrats used "mules" to improperly bring legal (I guess) ballots and drop them off at ballot boxes - which by the way isn't even a crime in most states. The basis of this from the group creating the film is tracking IMEI cell phone data to show folks associated with these numbers were visiting ballot boxes. Two problems of course.
- First, anyone who knows anything about cell phone data knows it's not precise enough to identify visiting a particular ballot box. It couldn't even tell you what side of the street you were on. These people literally could have driven by the box multiple times over the two week period.
- Second, IMEI numbers are 15 digits. The numbers presented as "proof" are all 20 digits with lots of xxxxx's. Producers claim it's to "obfuscate the numbers." Shocking. Why is it that when asked to present "actual proof" these election conspiracy nuts always fail to deliver? I wonder.

- Speaking of failing to deliver proof, the producers claim eye witnesses. They claim video tape. They present none of it. NONE. Here's the statement from the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.

Quote:

---

"What has not been provided is any other kind of evidence that ties these cellphones to ballot harvesting," the bureau said in a letter. "For example, there are no statements of witnesses and no names of any potential defendants to interview." It added that while the group had said it had "a source" who could validate such findings, "despite repeated requests that source has not been provided."

---

So the movie, in summary, is a bunch of crap. The "proof" doesn't exist. And this BF2 account spewing memes and tweets from convicted felon D'Souza isn't anything more than the Big Lie in a new package. Credit that line to The NY Times. Here's their write up on this film. I'll breathlessly await the detailed rebuttal from the Russians who post here and pretend to be US citizens..

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/us/politics/2000-mules-trump-conspiracy-theory.html

---

Actually, ballot harvesting is limited and/or illegal in most states. CA changed the law a few years back to allow it.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state

I'm not commenting on what did or did not happen in 2020 or the D'Souza film which I have not seen (and have no intention of watching). But there are reasons ballot harvesting is illegal or controversial, as outlined in the article below.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ballot-harvesting-collection-absentee-voting-explained-rules/

Here is an editorial discussing what has happened in So Cal where newly legalized harvesting swung several elections to the dems in 2018 and then what happened when the republicans responded.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-ballot-harvest-boomerang-11603149062

Regarding these hearings . . . I predict it will be a big circle jerk like the impeachment hearings. The left/woke crowd will be outraged, self righteous, and inflamed. The vast majority of people won't pay attention/care (or will care far less than they do about the economy and other current events).

---

I am willing to concede it's possible that there was massive voter fraud perpetrated by Republicans in 2020, but election fraud felon D'Souza failed to establish that. The fact that a bunch of brain dead Republicans are apoplectic over the fact that their messiah lost an election is not evidence of voter fraud.

I do think we should continue to focus on hardening our election systems to prevent Republican election fraud in future elections. I would start by outlawing doors, since that is at the top of the Republican wish list and they seem to be operating in good faith.

---

Man - if that's your response to what I wrote about the issue of ballot harvesting (with an article describing how both parties have done it), then you're a hopeless partisan. But we knew that. If you think ballot harvesting is a good idea, you could have just responded as such. Instead we get partisan attacks.

And its funny you refer to brain dead republicans when to this day, HRC, Abrams and their minions are still claiming they lost the 2016 elections due to fraud and/or "Russian interference." Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that only republicans gerrymander.

Separately, for those who might care to read something outside the BI bubble, here are interesting perspectives from two never Trump conservative commentators.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/yes-democrats-are-blowing-it/

The above article references this one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/trump-republicans-coup.html

---

Just more partisan attacks from a shameless partisan. You don't need to go out of your way to give credibility to ridiculous election fraud claims but you still do. There is zero reason to believe that democrat harvesting exceeds Republican harvesting. Zero. More Republicans have been convicted of voter fraud in connection with 2020 than Democrats, but the numbers are tiny and inconsequential.

And it's risible to talk about Abrams or Clinton in the context of Trump. Trump literally put out a video claiming that he won in a landslide and that the election was stolen in January 2021. Clinton conceded the day after the election. Trump fomented an insurrection and tried to convince states to send fraudulent electors. Clinton didn't do that. Trump and his team of morons came up with numerous schemes to have Pence not certify election results. Clinton disappeared to NY and has mostly stayed out of the spotlight. Trump continues to hold rallies where he claims he won the election and 76% of Republicans believe that he won and that Biden stole it. 76%! Democrats aren't talking about 2016 but you still are.

You know all of this but still raise harvesting as if it somehow contributed to Trump's loss.

Forgive me if your lecture falls on deaf ears.

---

Of course, I didn't say harvesting contributed to Trump's loss. You made that up. I raised ballot harvesting in it response to Sebasta's post saying it was legal in most states (which is really not the case). I did imply that harvesting is bad when either party does it - not specific to trump.

I haven't defended anything Trump did post-election. In fact, I posted 2 articles highly critical of Trump which make the larger point that Trump's actions outside of the 1/6 riots are far more dangerous and improper then what happened at the capital.

Consistent with BearGreg's policy, please provide a link to your 76% claim. As usual, you did not.

And re 2016, democrats absolutely still are talking about it. HRC has repeatedly claimed trump wasn't legitimately elected and as recently as a few months ago was reading her never given victory speech.

https://www.today.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-reads-parts-victory-speech-hoped-deliver-2016-rcna8003

Here she is in 2019 spouting off.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/29/hillary_clinton_trump_knows_hes_an_illegitimate_president_insomuch_as_he_has_a_conscience.html

Abrams still has not conceded her election.

And regarding misinformation and uninformed lemming voters, 72% of Dems think the 2016 election result was changed by Russian interference despite the fact that was thoroughly debunked by, among other things, the Mueller report.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2022/democrats_still_believe_russia_changed_2016_election,

"President Joe Biden's strongest supporters are most certain that Russian interference changed the 2016 election, and to fear future interference. Among voters who Strongly Approve of Biden's job performance as president, 86% believe it's at least somewhat likely Russian interference changed the outcome of the 2016 presidential election and 75% think it is Very Likely that Russia will try to interfere in this year's congressional midterm elections."

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And its funny you refer to brain dead republicans when to this day, HRC, Abrams and their minions are still claiming they lost the 2016 elections due to fraud and/or "Russian interference." Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that only republicans gerrymander.

---

My understanding is that the Abrams complaint has to do with the fact that her opponent was in charge of elections.
And that as a result Georgia did tricks to limit the Abrams turnout, like long lines to vote in black neighborhoods.

My understanding is that Hillary's complaint is because of Russia involvement online in favor of Trump.

Calling everything "fraud" - describing the complaints that way- would not be accurate.

Is that how they've described it?
Can you show me proof?

---

The difference is that Clinton and Abrams never filed a bunch of lawsuits or tried to pressure Secretaries of State with the intent of overturning the result. Whatever they said was political rhetoric intended to call attention to a problem (Russian attempts to influence American elections, voter suppression in Georgia, etc.). There was no mob storming the Capitol after Hillary lost.

Maybe you could argue that their language is out of bounds too. Maybe. But it's not anywhere near equivalent to Trump's words and actions.

---

I have no problem with candidates filing lawsuits - that is part of the process. Trumps actions were far worse and went beyond that in terms of trying to manipulate state legislatures, secretaries of state, etc. and filing many frivolous claims. And then he did not participate in and facilitate the orderly transfer of power which has been and should be a hallmark of our system. That was inexcusable.

I do think its bad when people - most notably Trump - but also HRC, Abrams, and others continue to bring specious claims about elections long after the lawsuits have been resolved.

These actions have been escalating for some time - many dems refused to certify Trumps election in 2016 (https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407).

At this point, both left and right voters are convinced the system is rigged against their party and that emanates from this BS. To say that both sides do it is not a defense of Trump, though some people here would make it that. it speaks to the larger point about why partisans on each side are convinced they only lose elections due to fraud, etc.

Sebastabear said:

---

Not sure it's worth going further down the "is ballot harvesting illegal" rat hole as that's not really the main point I was making about this "film." The main point being that D'Souza is a convicted felon who made a movie on behalf of the guy who pardoned him for his personal election fraud.

That movie purports to have bombshell cell phone location evidence - evidence that doesn't actually prove anyone got closer than 100 feet to these ballot boxes. And that D'Souza and his fellow producers claim eye witness testimony and video evidence that (shockingly) they can never actually produce for government investigators. Why they made a movie rather than take their "proof" to court and actually do something with it. They didn't because they can't because it's all BS.

That's the point.

But if we do want to talk ballot harvesting's illegality, here's the exact quote from The NY Times article I posted above.

Quote:

---

A repeated contention of the documentary is that getting paid to deliver other peoples' ballots is illegal in every state. Mr. D'Souza emailed The New York Times a citation to a federal statute that outlaws getting paid to vote and does not discuss delivering other people's ballots. Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, appears in the movie agreeing that the practice is outlawed nationwide, but in 2019 he wrote that it was "perfectly legal" in some states for "political guns-for-hire" to collect ballots. (Asked about the discrepancy, Mr. von Spakovsky said he believed the practice is illegal based on federal law.)

The swing states where Mr. Phillips and Ms. Engelbrecht focused their research do ban the delivery of ballots on behalf of others, with some exceptions. But elections officers in 16 other states surveyed by The Times said their states did not prohibit people getting paid to deliver a ballot. Some of those states limit how many ballots an individual can deliver, or bar campaigns from doing so.

---

---

As I said I won't watch D'Souza's document because he's trash and if he's claiming what you posted above, that is clearly trash. My point would be that a practice like ballot harvesting creates the appearance - if not the reality - that elections are more subject to fraud. It erodes confidence in elections. Hucksters like D'Souza then use that for their own purposes (which I do not support).