As we both know, what has never withstood scrutiny is any claim that there were enough votes changed by any legal violations, or by fraud, to overturn the outcome in any state. That is the bait & switch. I was open to evidence of that but it just wasn't there.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Illegal ballot harvesting and unlawful “curing” of certification envelopes in WI didn’t help Biden win 20,000 votes? Or illegal precanvassing and curing of absentee ballots plus extended deadline for 2.5 million mail in ballots in PA didn’t help Biden win 80,000 votes? You sure?
2 replies 7 retweets 53 likes -
Replying to @julie_kelly2
20,000 or 80,000 is a lot of votes. Where is the *evidence*, as opposed to just speculation? There's a reason why these claims never held up in court even in front of conservative judges - even Trump-appointed judges.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
You’re speculating without doing any research on your own that the unlawful handling of more than 7 million mail in ballots in 3 states Biden won by 250,000 votes total didn’t make a difference. And you think judges looked at these claims? They didn’t
3 replies 7 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @julie_kelly2
The Wisconsin claims were, in fact, considered on the merits & rejected https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/a-stunning-passage-from-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/ …https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/biden-won-wisconsin-but-it-was-even-closer-than-reported/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Dan, did you do your own work on this or just posting other people’s work? Are you aware a lawsuit on WI election still pending at SCOTUS?https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/30/the-badger-states-ballot-fix-was-in/ …
1 reply 4 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @julie_kelly2
I've gone into quite a number of these things myself & found, every single time, that they were BS & the president & his supporters kept pushing BS. Andy has covered some of the areas I haven't. As for the Feehan case:https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-sidney-powells-election-fraud-petitions-without-further-comment/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
So you support unelected partisans in swing states violating or making up their own rules in contravention of state law and the Constitution. HR 1 codifies the illegalities, period.
1 reply 5 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @julie_kelly2
No, I do not support that. I oppose it, have for years. I have a forthcoming piece on proposed reforms. My argument, however, is that the evidence does not support the claim that this changed the outcome of the election.
10 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Dan, I appreciate the engagement but you’re wrong to conclude it didn’t affect the outcome because it’s unknowable
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes
We're obviously not going to reach agreement on this, but I'm a lawyer. I live in the world of evidence and law. Yes, some things can't be traced. A fox in the snow may not leave visible tracks. But an elephant will.
-
-
-
Replying to @RogerThomas1288 @julie_kelly2
Facts aren't arrogant, they're facts. Declining to believe things that cannot be proven by evidence - or even shown to be sufficiently likely to be true by evidence - is not arrogance, it's reason.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.