I agree with that legal objection, but not with him using it as an excuse to invalidate Biden's victory. However, "they didn't steal enough votes to change the outcome" is not much of an argument when one is making prospective rules.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
The difference between "nonexistent" and "not significant enough to change the results of any federal election this century" is trivial.
-
And I really think this gets at exactly what
@adamgurri is arguing about your position.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"First and only time", you quote in your article.pic.twitter.com/Cdo5wl0D61
-
Note the wording - only time a *state* overturned a *federal* election on that basis.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
BTW Dan, if these ppl were caught and charged isnt that evidence that the system....is working?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Dan, when they examine 20 Million records and find a rate of fraud close to 1 in a Million, does that not strike you as being close enough to non-existent? How about we compromise on ”not significant enough to warrant the ‘anti-fraud’ measures GOP legislatures are taking up?”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.