198
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Someone remind me has there been any evidence at all of any large scale voter fraud?

[-] TheSporkBomber@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, and despite 4 dozen cases (probably more including GOP cases) launched by Trump where there would be an opportunity to present the evidence they have failed to provide anything.

It turns out when it's not facebook or fox news and a lawyer realized they could be in deep shit for lying the evidence just evaporates, presumably to the same place as hunter's laptop.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Exactly this. The pattern repeated so many times.

During a press conference or on Facebook/Twitter: "We have iron clad evidence of massive voter fraud and once we present this in court the judge will have no choice but to reverse the election results!"

In front of a judge during court: "Your honor, we have no actual evidence but we'd like you to reverse the election results because they are highly inconvenient to our goal of remaining in power."

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Nitpick: At least 6 dozen.

There were 60 cases brought by Trump alone, and not a single shred of evidence was provided in a single one. In fact, if I recall correctly, several of the lawyers outright stated that they weren't trying to actually claim voter fraud, leading at least one judge to ask "then what the hell are we doing here?"

Then you have the cases that Keri Lake continues to bring in Arizona, and the cases brought around the country that I'm not even bringing up here. I think even 6 dozen is a conservative (no pun intended) estimate.

And not a single one of them even tried to actually present the evidence they claimed to have. Probably because they didn't want to be disbarred before lunch.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

They have no evidence, but they've got lots of conspiracy theories. That's a kind of evidence, right? (Evidence of an inability and unwillingness to see reality.)

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers testified before the January 6 committee on Tuesday. Bowers said former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted he had no evidence of election fraud. The Arizona Republican detailed how Trump's team never presented anything to back up their claims.

Under oath, Arizona Republican House Speaker Russell "Rusty" Bowers testified on Tuesday that former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted to not having any evidence of election fraud despite repeatedly claiming he did.

Bowers, who had been a Trump supporter, spoke before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol in the afternoon, recounting his interactions with Giuliani and the Trump legal team as "a tragic parody," comparing them to the 1971 comedy "The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight."

"My recollection, he said, 'We've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence,'" Bowers said.

"And I don't know if that was a gaffe, or maybe he didn't think through what he said, but both myself and others in my group — the three in my group and my counsel, both remembered that specifically — and afterwards, kind of laughed about it," Bowers continued.

Via Business Insider

[-] Aatube@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Bush v. Gore but that was like 20 years ago and in favor of Republicans

[-] popemichael@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

If there was any actual factual evidence, both sides would want a new vote.

If Trump actually won, Dems would just take the L.

This could only really happen because the people involve have the maturity of toddlers because a lot of them were never told "No" while those who have been told "No" just ignored it and did things anyway.

They latch on to things like emails, Hunter Biden, like it's a pacifier because the thin (and made up) "evidence" of corruption is all they have. So they point to that like it's a gotcha "they did x before, so that means they did Y too!"

The only people who believe them are too full of hate to see how dumb the argument can be.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

Moreover, they don't want their "sources" revealed because they might be "in danger of ...harm" but are totally okay with doxxing the man who was dropping off his kids' ballots, and lying about him committing "a crime."

And we know which side is roaming around out there with guns. And we've heard Trump incite violence. They should be required to pay for 24 hour protection for everyone they've falsely accused.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
198 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18134 readers
3739 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS