Search results

She wasn't.

If she found 'proof' then why is she backing away from the allegations and her lawyers citing the following: "No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims

What about Liz Cheney? Does she have to support the ongoing election fraud nonsense to count as a republican? Nope. She's one of those who has the guts to call it for what it is.

Yeah, so why has Sidney Powell started claiming that her allegations regarding such weren't to be taken seriously by reasonable people then? A billion dollar lawsuit perhaps?

The only evidence of any worth is the substantive sort, else it's worth what exactly? I don't reject God's word as much as you like to keep flinging that out in regards to me because I don't agree with you as to what God's standards are. Frankly, if you're going to go down that route...

See User Name's response. Mine echoes it.

Some 'witness' she was eh?

Seconded. I'm already on record here for saying that if such was uncovered I'd have no problem with results being overturned. No fan of Trump in any way, shape or form but fraudulent election rigging is inexcusable.

Would God's standard tolerate insubstantial evidence? It's all very well going back to the OT when such matters couldn't be established with more effective measures as we have today so would God be happy with the word of two or three witnesses in the present? The only kind of evidence that...

Tears what, the book? :D 😐

Fox News didn't seem too keen to air Trump's latest "speech" on Saturday at North Carolina. One wonders why... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-republican-speech-north-carolina-b1860363.html

Well, punctuality and content still sorely lacking but other than that, well done!

So, about as much truth in that as punctuation then. Got it.

They must all be closet democrats in disguise...

I rather suspect the latter is well out of yours as well and Lindell most assuredly is a "quakk". Debunked all over the place.

You keep throwing this sort of stuff about and it only reflects badly on you. The truth of the matter is is that there's no substantive evidence for widespread voter fraud, end of. Plenty of whack a doodle claims and assertions but nothing of substance. If an accusation or claim is levelled then...

Exactly. Any evidence for a claim has to be substantial otherwise what's the point?

Now that's a reasonable posit.

Just more of the same bunk he'd already put out. Guy should stick to manufacturing pillows... https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/assessing-the-various-claims-in-mike

What am I supposed to be debunking exactly, a sentence of yours?