Who are the real Election Deniers?

[flockofseagulls104]

Explain how this analysis is wrong.

We will NEVER have elections we can trust unless we go back to the basics, that have been proven over all of history. ALL OF US should be concerned and demand change, regardless of our political beliefs.

[silverscreenselect]

Explain how this analysis is wrong.

We will NEVER have elections we can trust unless we go back to the basics, that have been proven over all of history. ALL OF US should be concerned and demand change, regardless of our political beliefs.

Wow!! Flock's expert is some random English guy on Twitter whose pinned tweet is Maddie the Talking Cat. I'm convinced. I take back everything I ever said about elections. If only those 60 courts had listened to Maddie the Talking Cat, we'd be in much better shape today.

[flockofseagulls104]

Explain how this analysis is wrong.

We will NEVER have elections we can trust unless we go back to the basics, that have been proven over all of history. ALL OF US should be concerned and demand change, regardless of our political beliefs.

Wow!! Flock's expert is some random English guy on Twitter whose pinned tweet is Maddie the Talking Cat. I'm convinced. I take back everything I ever said about elections. If only those 60 courts had listened to Maddie the Talking Cat, we'd be in much better shape today.

As usual, don't listen and digest, just mindlessly attack.

[silverscreenselect]

As usual, don't listen and digest, just mindlessly attack.

Before you mindlessly digest, you should ask yourself if this guy knows what he's talking about or whether he's just mindlessly regurgitating stuff he's heard on other twitter streams.

Maddie the Talking Cat is probably more reliable than him.

[flockofseagulls104]

As usual, don't listen and digest, just mindlessly attack.

Before you mindlessly digest, you should ask yourself if this guy knows what he's talking about or whether he's just mindlessly regurgitating stuff he's heard on other twitter streams.

Maddie the Talking Cat is probably more reliable than him.

Do you have any reasoned response to his logic? Please expound and desist from childish attacks. Do you even have an answer other than to denigrate him? Is that your only response? It seems like you want to protect a system that literally cannot be trusted by anyone. The arguments this man states were even pointed out by leaders on your side until a certain point. Now to even question the system gets you cancelled, censored, fined beyond all reason and/or sent to jail in some cases. Why is that, trollboy? What is being protected?

[flockofseagulls104]

Since I am in this area right now, I will show you some actual evidence you can choose to ignore, like the 60 court cases did. Of course, this is just one case that is provable. I have verified it personally, and I can show anyone who is at all interested how I did it.

Oh, but this doesn't show WIDESPREAD FRAUD and wouldn't have changed the election results! But anyone who has the brains to do this would not put all their eggs in one basket. After all, there are TRILLIONS of dollars at stake based upon who wins these elections. And this is just one small category of the manipulation of the voter rolls we have found AFTER THE FACT. There are reams of other evidence. It doesn't even deal with the manipulation of the entire vulnerable electronic system that happens after the voting takes place. THEGANERDS on rumble is presenting some of what they have found in small snippets that are easy to understand if you pay attention. Why on Rumble? Because anywhere else it would be censored. We are finding the needles in the haystack and are doing our best to guard against these things happening again.

Manipulation of our election systems is REAL.

You have any data disputing this, trollboy, or do you think THEGANERDS is a stupid name so you will disregard it? Make sure none of this gets into your head to topple your jenga of hypocrisy

[silverscreenselect]

I don't know enough about how the election rolls work to comment. But I do know how the judicial system works. And if this woman wants to "prove" election shenanigans of some sort, let her come into court, and under oath explain her qualifications, explain how she obtained the numbers on that spreadsheet, explain what that means, and then let her answer questions from the Secretary of State's office under cross examination. Then let their experts examine the same data and describe their conclusions. Then we'll let the court decide who presented a better case.

And the courts did, over 60 times. And the result was the same every time.

In the meantime, leave the explanations to Maddy the Talking Cat. She's much more entertaining to listen to than that woman and probably equally qualified.

[flockofseagulls104]

BTW, trollboy, here's something you can check for yourself.

Go to https://mvp.sos.ga.gov/s/voter-history-files

Download the 2024 voter history file. This is the official record of all the votes cast so far in 2024.

Open it as a spreadsheet. Then sort it by election date.

There are 9 people who have already cast votes for the Nov 5, 2024 election or the Dec 3, 2024 runoff. I wonder who made the runoff?

Do you think that a determined bad actor will have any trouble fucking with Georgia's election system when they release this kind of information to the general public?

Explain to me how you will ignore this evidence. Maybe I don't have standing?

[flockofseagulls104]

I don't know enough about how the election rolls work to comment.

That is amazingly apparent. You can't follow simple logic even when it is presented to you in easy to understand terms. More likely you don't want to. It's probably the same with the judges and juries assigned to your 60 court cases. Thank you for proving my point.

Now your learned answer is to disparage Kim. You are a piece of garbage. You have no idea about these people, yet because you have no answer to what they say, you mock and denigrate them. Just like the historical fucking bigots from your political party.

Unlike you, I know that I don't know what I don't know. So I have loaded every Voter Roll and Voter history file into SQL tables, and I have verified FOR MYSELF everything I have posted with the actual data from the GA SOS webpage. I KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED ABOVE IS THE TRUTH. I can recreate it for anyone.

BTW If you paid the least bit of attention to what I posted, you would have already known that Kim and others have put together an Amicus Brief to a case which has been accepted and has been distributed to the Supreme Court. These snippets are just some small examples of what is contained in it.

The judicial system is failing us.

[silverscreenselect]

BTW If you paid the least bit of attention to what I posted, you would have already known that Kim and others have put together an Amicus Brief to a case which has been accepted and has been distributed to the Supreme Court. These snippets are just some small examples of what is contained in it.

I don't know if you're referring to the Georgia Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court, but their appellate practice is similar. The Supreme Court, Georgia or US, does not consider or relitigate factual matters. The proper forum for this is the trial court, where presumably any groups challenging the validity of an election could have presented this information. The Supreme Court may have accepted an amicus brief from your group, but they will only consider arguments of legal issues, if you have them. "Proof" that nine people illegally voted is potential factual evidence to be considered and evaluated by a trial court.

Your group seems to want to do everything except present their case in the forum that can properly evaluate it and that includes video clips on a knockoff version of YouTube.

[flockofseagulls104]

BTW If you paid the least bit of attention to what I posted, you would have already known that Kim and others have put together an Amicus Brief to a case which has been accepted and has been distributed to the Supreme Court. These snippets are just some small examples of what is contained in it.

I don't know if you're referring to the Georgia Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court, but their appellate practice is similar. The Supreme Court, Georgia or US, does not consider or relitigate factual matters. The proper forum for this is the trial court, where presumably any groups challenging the validity of an election could have presented this information. The Supreme Court may have accepted an amicus brief from your group, but they will only consider arguments of legal issues, if you have them. "Proof" that nine people illegally voted is potential factual evidence to be considered and evaluated by a trial court.

Your group seems to want to do everything except present their case in the forum that can properly evaluate it and that includes video clips on a knockoff version of YouTube.

I think they know what they're doing. I know you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just scrambling around for anything to deflect the from the facts for which YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. You are pitiful.

BTW, did you bother to download the SOS Voter History file? Or did you not even try because you are not a court of law, and I have no standing, flockofseagulls is a dumb name or some other stupid excuse to avoid facing the reality? I can't imagine our judicial system being so obtuse or politically biased after seeing it in action in NYC over the past few months. Impossible! Care to explain how people could have already voted in elections that are months away? Or did I identify the ONLY clerical mistakes ever to show up from the crack SOS data team?

And who appointed youtube as the arbiter of truth?

[wbtravis007]

I don't know enough about how the election rolls work to comment.

That is amazingly apparent. You can't follow simple logic even when it is presented to you in easy to understand terms. More likely you don't want to. It's probably the same with the judges and juries assigned to your 60 court cases. Thank you for proving my point.

Now your learned answer is to disparage Kim. You are a piece of garbage. You have no idea about these people, yet because you have no answer to what they say, you mock and denigrate them. Just like the historical fucking bigots from your political party.

Unlike you, I know that I don't know what I don't know. So I have loaded every Voter Roll and Voter history file into SQL tables, and I have verified FOR MYSELF everything I have posted with the actual data from the GA SOS webpage. I KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED ABOVE IS THE TRUTH. I can recreate it for anyone.

BTW If you paid the least bit of attention to what I posted, you would have already known that Kim and others have put together an Amicus Brief to a case which has been accepted and has been distributed to the Supreme Court. These snippets are just some small examples of what is contained in it.

The judicial system is failing us.

Who’s the trollboy, trollboy?

You keep asking him to respond. Then, he usually makes you look pretty silly, and then you spew obnoxious insults directed to him and everybody else outside of your TDS cult.

As for all of these cryptic descriptions of things that are supposed to be a big deal that you HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF, I’d welcome the opportunity to hear a brief summary of:

1. What the problems are;

2. The evidence regarding those problems (again, briefly); and

3. What steps, specifically, you would suggest that we all should support to solve those problems.

I’m not interested in links. Just your summary.

[flockofseagulls104]

Another example of our broken election system.

These are needles in a big haystack. Oh, an isolated example, the trollboys of the world might say.

But there are thousands of us private citizens that are now scouring the haystack and appalled at what we are finding. The government is supposed to be working for us, not labeling us as 'enemies of democracy'. How many more of these examples have we not found yet? They are very well hidden. You want to talk CIVIL RIGHTS? This woman's vote cancels out mine, or yours. That is a violation of MY civil rights, and YOUR civil rights. Much more egregious than requiring an ID to cast a vote.

Do any of you realize how much UNPAID, VOLUNTEER time and effort it takes to find these violations? And how little effort it took for this felon to do what she is doing, and probably will continue to do, with the cooperation of the local authorities? Why is Brad Raffensperger doing NOTHING to prevent this and seemingly encouraging it?

Once again, before I posted this, I verified all the info for myself. All checks out. Everything.

Wake up, people.

[silverscreenselect]

Another example of our broken election system.

These are needles in a big haystack. Oh, an isolated example, the trollboys of the world might say.

News flash: Flock. There are always people who illegally vote in every election. It includes people who vote in the name of deceased relatives and people who vote multiple times in different jurisdictions. And what's been shown when these cases are found is that they are isolated and are fairly evenly distributed between the party affiliations of those voters.

Here's the law regarding voter residence in Georgia:

In determining the residence of a person desiring to register to vote or to qualify to run for elective office, the following rules shall be followed so far as they are applicable:
The residence of any person shall be held to be in that place in which such person’s habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom;

A person shall not be considered to have lost such person’s residence who leaves such person’s home and goes into another state or county or municipality in this state, for temporary purposes only, with the intention of returning, unless such person shall register to vote or perform other acts indicating a desire to change such person’s citizenship and residence;

A person shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county or municipality of this state into which such person has come for temporary purposes only without the intention of making such county or municipality such person’s permanent place of abode;

If a person removes to another state with the intention of making it such person’s residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state;

If a person removes to another state with the intention of remaining there an indefinite time and making such state such person’s place of residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state, notwithstanding that such person may intend to return at some indefinite future period;

If a person goes into another state and while there exercises the right of a citizen by voting, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state

In determining a voter’s qualification to register and vote, the registrars to whom such application is made shall consider, in addition to the applicant’s expressed intent, any relevant circumstances determining the applicant’s residence. The registrars taking such registration may consider the applicant’s financial independence, business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse, and children, if any, leaseholds, sites of personal and real property owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that the registrars may reasonably deem necessary to determine the qualification of an applicant to vote in a primary or election. The decision of the registrars to whom such application is made shall be presumptive evidence of a person’s residence for voting purposes.

The statute also lists certain circumstances that don't necessarily indicate an intention to reside in another state, such as military service, government service, or attending college.

Based on this statute, there are two factors to determine residence for voting purposes: physical location and intent to reside there. Lots of people have vacation residences for parts of the year, or relocate temporarily for a work assignment. And no one is a felon, unless or until they are convicted of a felony, no matter how much the Georgia Nerds think so. Donald Trump is a felon; this woman is not. Based on that video clip, the Georgia Nerds apparently challenged this woman's right to vote in Gwinnett County, and the Gwinnett County election board considered whatever evidence was introduced and ruled against them. And the burden of proof in such a challenge is on the person challenging, otherwise you could just challenge the entire voter roll of DeKalb County and dare everyone to show up and prove their entitlement to vote.

That's your problem Flock. You get what you think are an impressive array of spreadsheets and other data and then present them to the Board with the authority to make these decisions, and you get turned down. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Now you might say to yourself, maybe there's something wrong with the way I'm going about this. Or you might just say the Election Board is complicit in fraud. Like the 60 judges and juries that have rejected the other cases of supposed election fraud.

This woman may have moved from Georgia permanently and requested a ballot in 2020 and 2022. Or she may have part-year residence in MA. Or there may be some other valid reason for having the ballot sent to MA. The problem is that your datasheets and Facebook posts prove nothing. When you had the opportunity to present your evidence in a forum designed to consider those challenges, you lost. And you continue to lose and you continue to whine about it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Another example of our broken election system.

These are needles in a big haystack. Oh, an isolated example, the trollboys of the world might say.

News flash: Flock. There are always people who illegally vote in every election. It includes people who vote in the name of deceased relatives and people who vote multiple times in different jurisdictions. And what's been shown when these cases are found is that they are isolated and are fairly evenly distributed between the party affiliations of those voters.

Here's the law regarding voter residence in Georgia:

In determining the residence of a person desiring to register to vote or to qualify to run for elective office, the following rules shall be followed so far as they are applicable:
The residence of any person shall be held to be in that place in which such person’s habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom;

A person shall not be considered to have lost such person’s residence who leaves such person’s home and goes into another state or county or municipality in this state, for temporary purposes only, with the intention of returning, unless such person shall register to vote or perform other acts indicating a desire to change such person’s citizenship and residence;

A person shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county or municipality of this state into which such person has come for temporary purposes only without the intention of making such county or municipality such person’s permanent place of abode;

If a person removes to another state with the intention of making it such person’s residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state;

If a person removes to another state with the intention of remaining there an indefinite time and making such state such person’s place of residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state, notwithstanding that such person may intend to return at some indefinite future period;

If a person goes into another state and while there exercises the right of a citizen by voting, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state

In determining a voter’s qualification to register and vote, the registrars to whom such application is made shall consider, in addition to the applicant’s expressed intent, any relevant circumstances determining the applicant’s residence. The registrars taking such registration may consider the applicant’s financial independence, business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse, and children, if any, leaseholds, sites of personal and real property owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that the registrars may reasonably deem necessary to determine the qualification of an applicant to vote in a primary or election. The decision of the registrars to whom such application is made shall be presumptive evidence of a person’s residence for voting purposes.

The statute also lists certain circumstances that don't necessarily indicate an intention to reside in another state, such as military service, government service, or attending college.

Based on this statute, there are two factors to determine residence for voting purposes: physical location and intent to reside there. Lots of people have vacation residences for parts of the year, or relocate temporarily for a work assignment. And no one is a felon, unless or until they are convicted of a felony, no matter how much the Georgia Nerds think so. Donald Trump is a felon; this woman is not. Based on that video clip, the Georgia Nerds apparently challenged this woman's right to vote in Gwinnett County, and the Gwinnett County election board considered whatever evidence was introduced and ruled against them. And the burden of proof in such a challenge is on the person challenging, otherwise you could just challenge the entire voter roll of DeKalb County and dare everyone to show up and prove their entitlement to vote.

That's your problem Flock. You get what you think are an impressive array of spreadsheets and other data and then present them to the Board with the authority to make these decisions, and you get turned down. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Now you might say to yourself, maybe there's something wrong with the way I'm going about this. Or you might just say the Election Board is complicit in fraud. Like the 60 judges and juries that have rejected the other cases of supposed election fraud.

This woman may have moved from Georgia permanently and requested a ballot in 2020 and 2022. Or she may have part-year residence in MA. Or there may be some other valid reason for having the ballot sent to MA. The problem is that your datasheets and Facebook posts prove nothing. When you had the opportunity to present your evidence in a forum designed to consider those challenges, you lost. And you continue to lose and you continue to whine about it.

Read the post again, trollboy. I did some more personal verification and research. More than you will ever do. The woman is as stupid as was stated. You are a perfect example of how the 60 court cases were handled. You are condoning obvious felonies based on technicalities. Then you applaud completely fabricated, made up felonies that are prosecuted far beyond reason against individuals you don't like. Stick your head further into the sand.

[flockofseagulls104]

I have given you many examples of malfeasance, voter roll and ballot manipulation and outright fraud. And there is MUCH more.

What PROOF have you given me that the 2020 election results were accurate? The answer is NONE. That is my final answer. There is ample evidence to question the results of both the 2020 and 2022 elections in Georgia. The only 'Proof' you have was what came out of the SOS office.

There was enough evidence to question the 2020 election at the time, but it has taken several years and much time and effort by individual civic minded citizens to find the needles in the haystack. We are determined never to let this election fraud happen again. Any honest citizen should be supporting this effort. Who does NOT want honest, transparent and accurate elections? Apparently, only people LIKE YOU. Election Fraud Deniers. "Our election system is safe and secure". WELL DON'T JUST SAY IT. PROVE IT!

The only acceptable proof is for an independent count of the actual Election Day ballots that all sides can view and verify. We would even be content with just doing Fulton County. But the SOS and Fulton County have blocked, evaded, and probably destroyed the evidence making it possible to do so.

Your convoluted, disjointed responses and unwillingness to acknowledge the documented examples presented to you are evidence that you are an election fraud denier.

[silverscreenselect]

You are condoning obvious felonies based on technicalities.

Those "technicalities" are the basis of how our legal system has operated for over 200 years. They are based on such things as burden of proof, admissibility of evidence, and standards of review. They are the reason why Donald Trump (and Hunter Biden and Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro) were convicted and why your side lost 60 court cases.

You say that you have verified everything about this woman. By that, you must mean that you've gone up to Massachusetts and seen where you believe she's been living and interviewed neighbors and other witnesses. I didn't think so. What you mean is that you've run some data on some spreadsheets in a way that somebody instructed you to do and come up with "evidence." But until you produce that evidence in front of the proper tribunal and explain exactly how you derived that evidence and sit for cross examination from parties seeking to challenge your findings or expertise, then you've done nothing legally except play with numbers.

And by the way, you and the Georgia Nerds are not who gets to determine what "acceptable proof" is in the State of Georgia. The statutes, courts, and other decision-making bodies do that.

[flockofseagulls104]

And by the way, you and the Georgia Nerds are not who gets to determine what "acceptable proof" is in the State of Georgia. The statutes, courts, and other decision-making bodies do that.

They certainly do. Just like Ed Lindsey did.

Have you found the 9 people who voted in November or December yet? Maybe you can ask them who made the runoffs?

[flockofseagulls104]

you've gone up to Massachusetts and seen where you believe she's been living and interviewed neighbors and other witnesses.

No, I haven't, because if I had, one of your election fraud enabler lawyers like booby would sue me for 'intimidation'. They can and do use lawfare against anyone. But I did find her on facebook. She is as careless about it as advertised. By the way, I did not and would not ever post there, contact her or in any way harass her, and I suggest that no one else do that. I am only interested in finding out who is telling truth when I can. GA Nerds have passed the test, as far as I am concerned. Where is your proof and research?
Can you show me any specific instance where in any of those 60 infamous cases that they investigated a case like this and disproved anything? Until you can, please spare me any more references to your 60 court cases. Sorry you can't follow simple database logic. I give you indisputable evidence, and all you have is 60 court cases. Not an argument. They are immaterial to this discussion. This is about the evidence that I am presenting and have verified to the best of my ability. Stick to the topic at hand.

I will let the interested authorities, if there are any, deal with her.

Any more excuses to avoid facing the truth?

[silverscreenselect]

Can you show me any specific instance where in any of those 60 infamous cases that they investigated a case like this and disproved anything? Until you can, please spare me any more references to your 60 court cases.

Let me explain a little concept to you. It's called "burden of proof." It determines who has the burden of proving the existence or absence of a particular fact and the degree of proof needed. In an election contest, the party contesting the election must establish that improprieties exist. It's not up to Brad Raffensperger to disprove anything. That's why your bunch is 0 for 60. Since my understanding based on the video from the Georgia Nerds is that the Gwinnett County Election Board rejected the challenge to this woman, 0 for 61.

And when you or someone like you goes to the Election Board with your spreadsheets and number crunching and they agree with you, then people will start listening to you. In the meantime, it's just a bunch of sore losers whining and hoping to raise an equally groundless stink in the next election.

[flockofseagulls104]

Can you show me any specific instance where in any of those 60 infamous cases that they investigated a case like this and disproved anything? Until you can, please spare me any more references to your 60 court cases.

Let me explain a little concept to you. It's called "burden of proof." It determines who has the burden of proving the existence or absence of a particular fact and the degree of proof needed. In an election contest, the party contesting the election must establish that improprieties exist. It's not up to Brad Raffensperger to disprove anything. That's why your bunch is 0 for 60. Since my understanding based on the video from the Georgia Nerds is that the Gwinnett County Election Board rejected the challenge to this woman, 0 for 61.

No, Brad has to PROVE it. The State Election Board required him to do so. And he won't. He uses deflection just like you do.
BTW, the Gwinnett Board of Elections is not a court. If it's like DeKalb, it is 3 democrats against 2 republicans. Don't be talking about things you don't know about.

I am providing YOU with proof. Can you do anything to refute it? No. All you show me is how much you want to avoid facing it. Just like the court cases that you rely on as cover. Address what I have shown you and stop deflecting or just shut up about it and let other people consider it without your constant kneejerking.

[wbtravis007]

Can you show me any specific instance where in any of those 60 infamous cases that they investigated a case like this and disproved anything? Until you can, please spare me any more references to your 60 court cases.

Let me explain a little concept to you. It's called "burden of proof." It determines who has the burden of proving the existence or absence of a particular fact and the degree of proof needed. In an election contest, the party contesting the election must establish that improprieties exist. It's not up to Brad Raffensperger to disprove anything. That's why your bunch is 0 for 60. Since my understanding based on the video from the Georgia Nerds is that the Gwinnett County Election Board rejected the challenge to this woman, 0 for 61.

No, Brad has to PROVE it. The State Election Board required him to do so. And he won't. He uses deflection just like you do.
BTW, the Gwinnett Board of Elections is not a court. If it's like DeKalb, it is 3 democrats against 2 republicans. Don't be talking about things you don't know about.

I am providing YOU with proof. Can you do anything to refute it? No. All you show me is how much you want to avoid facing it. Just like the court cases that you rely on as cover. Address what I have shown you and stop deflecting or just shut up about it and let other people consider it without your constant kneejerking.

I’m pretty sure that nobody here supports election fraud, and that everyone here wants free and fair elections.

If what you are really trying to achieve is to convince people that we need to make changes, why don’t you actually do that here by doing something other than floundering around. Why not address the three points that I raised a little while ago in this thread:

As for all of these cryptic descriptions of things that are supposed to be a big deal that you HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF, I’d welcome the opportunity to hear a brief summary of:

1. What the problems are;

2. The evidence regarding those problems (again, briefly); and

3. What steps, specifically, you would suggest that we all should support to solve those problems.

I’m not interested in links. Just your summary.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's some of what the 60 courts ignored.

But goddammit, we can't have anyone categorize payments to a lawyer as a legal expense.

You 'independents' need to wake up. If we don't stop this, the boobies and the trollboys will never allow us to have a fair election again.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's some of what the 60 courts ignored.

But goddammit, we can't have anyone categorize payments to a lawyer as a legal expense.

You 'independents' need to wake up. If we don't stop this, the boobies and the trollboys will never allow us to have a fair election again.

Here's what the story is about the Wisconsin report. Gableman is a former state Supreme Court Justice who was retained by the Republican-controlled legislature to investigate the 2020 election. His eventual report was roundly criticized by both Democrats and Republicans and he was called an embarrassment. He was fired by the same person who hired him three years earlier

While Gableman found no evidence of widespread fraud during his inquiry, he had joined Trump in calling for lawmakers to consider decertifying the 2020 election — something [Assembly Speaker Robin] Vos and legal experts say is unconstitutional and impossible.

Vos announced the investigation last year under pressure from Trump and chose Gableman, a conservative former Supreme Court justice, to lead it. But as the investigation progressed, Vos’ relationship soured with both Gableman and Trump. When he hired Gableman, Vos had said he was “supremely confident” in his abilities. On the night of Aug. 9, Vos was calling him an “embarrassment.”
“After having many members of our caucus reach out to me over the past several days, it is beyond clear to me that we only have one choice in this matter, and that’s to close the Office of Special Counsel,” Vos said Aug. 12 in a statement issued first to The Associated Press.

His investigation had drawn bipartisan scorn, and his firing generated bipartisan praise. Britt Cudaback, spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers who has been highly critical of Gableman and the probe, reacted with one word: “Finally.” “It was a good decision. It would have been a better decision six months ago,” said Republican state Sen. Kathy Bernier, chair of the Senate elections committee, who went on to add that she has “zero respect, for Michael Gableman.”

Gableman also faces legal trouble. A judge was to determine whether Gableman remains in contempt of court for not complying with the state’s open records law. Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington forwarded his contempt order to the committee that disciplines attorneys for possible further action, including suspension or repeal of Gableman’s law license. That is one of six pending lawsuits related to the investigation. The attorneys’ fees awarded so far has resulted in the total tab for Gableman’s investigation, all paid by taxpayers, that tops $1.1 million.

Gableman also faced criticism for scant expense records, confusing emails, meeting with conspiracy theorists including MyPillow executive Mike Lindell, and making rudimentary errors, including multiple spelling mistakes. For instance, in records released during the lawsuits, Gableman and his team routinely misspelled Vos as “Voss.”

https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/vos- ... ote-probe/

And an AP fact check on the claims Gableman made in his report: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm ... 8ec89242f3

As far as the "bribery" money that Mark Zuckerberg paid to five cities, Politifact found that these grants went to 200 cities, including many Republican cities and multiple lawsuits contesting the grants were denied by various courts. Politifact rated this claim "Pants on Fire." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... eman-says/

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's some of what the 60 courts ignored.

But goddammit, we can't have anyone categorize payments to a lawyer as a legal expense.

You 'independents' need to wake up. If we don't stop this, the boobies and the trollboys will never allow us to have a fair election again.

Here's what the story is about the Wisconsin report. Gableman is a former state Supreme Court Justice who was retained by the Republican-controlled legislature to investigate the 2020 election. His eventual report was roundly criticized by both Democrats and Republicans and he was called an embarrassment. He was fired by the same person who hired him three years earlier

While Gableman found no evidence of widespread fraud during his inquiry, he had joined Trump in calling for lawmakers to consider decertifying the 2020 election — something [Assembly Speaker Robin] Vos and legal experts say is unconstitutional and impossible.

Vos announced the investigation last year under pressure from Trump and chose Gableman, a conservative former Supreme Court justice, to lead it. But as the investigation progressed, Vos’ relationship soured with both Gableman and Trump. When he hired Gableman, Vos had said he was “supremely confident” in his abilities. On the night of Aug. 9, Vos was calling him an “embarrassment.”
“After having many members of our caucus reach out to me over the past several days, it is beyond clear to me that we only have one choice in this matter, and that’s to close the Office of Special Counsel,” Vos said Aug. 12 in a statement issued first to The Associated Press.

His investigation had drawn bipartisan scorn, and his firing generated bipartisan praise. Britt Cudaback, spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers who has been highly critical of Gableman and the probe, reacted with one word: “Finally.” “It was a good decision. It would have been a better decision six months ago,” said Republican state Sen. Kathy Bernier, chair of the Senate elections committee, who went on to add that she has “zero respect, for Michael Gableman.”

Gableman also faces legal trouble. A judge was to determine whether Gableman remains in contempt of court for not complying with the state’s open records law. Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington forwarded his contempt order to the committee that disciplines attorneys for possible further action, including suspension or repeal of Gableman’s law license. That is one of six pending lawsuits related to the investigation. The attorneys’ fees awarded so far has resulted in the total tab for Gableman’s investigation, all paid by taxpayers, that tops $1.1 million.

Gableman also faced criticism for scant expense records, confusing emails, meeting with conspiracy theorists including MyPillow executive Mike Lindell, and making rudimentary errors, including multiple spelling mistakes. For instance, in records released during the lawsuits, Gableman and his team routinely misspelled Vos as “Voss.”

https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/vos- ... ote-probe/

And an AP fact check on the claims Gableman made in his report: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm ... 8ec89242f3

As far as the "bribery" money that Mark Zuckerberg paid to five cities, Politifact found that these grants went to 200 cities, including many Republican cities and multiple lawsuits contesting the grants were denied by various courts. Politifact rated this claim "Pants on Fire." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... eman-says/

I know nothing about Wisconsin. Never heard of Gableman. And I doubt you have, either. Just more of grabbing shit off the internet to support your narrative. And fuck off with the MSM "Fact Checkers". Their source of 'facts' is the bullshit they publish as news.

I know Georgia. I know what is happening and what has happened in Georgia. I have given you several verifiable, real, actual occurrences of malfeasance, false statements and lawbreaking by the State of Georgia in relation to election reporting and administration. When will you get around to addressing any of those REAL FACTS instead of ignoring them and calling people names?

Here's another one. Hundreds if not thousands of individual citizens are doing the investigations that our main stream media never did and should have done, and are continually hiding the fact that they didn't. They, like you, just go along with what the proven liars at the GA SOS office tell them without doing ANY investigation as to what the truth is.