“You have to be blind not to see it”: Links to just some of the many clear signs of election theft this time around

I heard you on claim that Trump won the 2020 election but it was stolen on the Red Scare podcast. So I found your website trying to understand your basis for making such a claim. Everything else you said on the podcast seemed very rational, except this. So here I am sifting through some of the evidence you present.

From what I have been able to piece together, NO substantiated claims of a stolen election. Trump supporters have/had suspicions and theories yet no true and complete evidence to support them. So they presented these suspicions and theories to the media for it to be sorted out viral cancel culture style. People like you being the viral vectors spreading the theories and suspicions, but not going back to the sources to demand full and complete evidence. Shameful and really makes me think much less of you, the course you taught and your gripe against colleagues.

https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/1343732761211719680?s=21 TWEET UNAVAILABLE

https://twitter.com/codemonkeyz/status/1341928404078141440?s=21 ACCOUNT SUSPENDED

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/yes-it-was-stolen-election-john-perazzo/ Article parrots a bunch of claims based on unfounded and un-validated evidence. I’m not gonna go into it all, but just looking at the first state mentioned Georgia, OBVIOUS problems with the claims.

One claim holds up, that vote counters ejected vote monitors in Georgia late one night then continued counting. This is against the Georgia rules, however does not prove fake or ballots that would otherwise be disqualified. There are substantiated claims of trump monitors interfering with a quick orderly count of democratic regions. This counting w/out monitors rule breaking might be their solution to trump monitors who seemed to try to run out the clock on the count of blue votes.

However all the other claims were handily refuted by GA lawmakers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB2l0d3VEGI&t using point by point evidence. At the end of the video this trump lawyer admitted he didn’t have valid data to base fraud claims. He then tries to pivot saying the lack of transparent data that would allow third parties to better review data is THE issue.

What a complete waste of time trump lawyers in GA pretty much making up fraud claims. After seeing this garbage, I decided to not bother with the claims from other states. I assume they are equally farcical.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988 This paper starts with similar claims like the front page article. Wherever this garbage study is going it will need to conclude that only one side is cheating. From how the paper starts, impossible to think they have any better access to data to conclude blue cheated and red didn’t. For every prior election we have heard of red tactics like incorrectly purging voter rolls in blue areas or making it hard a possible for those voting blue to qualify to cast. All of these tactics, including obstructing the count to run clock down might be considered fraud. So this paper is quite disingenuous from the start.

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1343995134392856578?s=21 this tweet seems to show how reds were using the purge voter role tactic. A judged reversed the order allowing the tactic. But there is no proof that there was anything outright illegal here. Even if the individual involved was key in litigating issues in prior elections, this tweet provides no evidence to substantiate anything.

https://twitter.com/superyayadize/status/1343178130408800259?s=21 account suspended

https://twitter.com/newsmax/status/1343963819987578888?s=21 This tweet refers to an issue, but in itself is not evidence of fraud. I looked up the situation and found this https://wjactv.com/news/local/pa-republican-lawmakers-analysis-finds-presidential-election-numbers-dont-add-up I am unfamiliar with what’s going on here. The reds make claims and the Penn DOS reviews the data then refutes the claims and data as being baseless.