In article
This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at
msnbc.
'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground
State, Struggles To
Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
<https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early- voting-kamala-harris/>
'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said
Wednesday that not one
early voter interviewed by his team in the
battleground state of
Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice
President Kamala Harris.
Republicans are voting by mail or returning their
ballots early at a
two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats
outpaced
Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard
said on ? Jose-Diaz
Balart Reports.? Not a single voter lining up at
the polling
locations in Mohave County openly said they were
voting for Harris,
the NBC correspondent added.
?We went to a couple early voting locations, and we
saw lengthy
lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting
in line, and we
should note, we did not find a single person who
audibly would tell us
that they voted for Kamala Harris,? Hillyard said.
?These were
Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the
all- important Mohave
County.?
One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump
named Jim Coddington
said that voters are making a ?special effort? to
vote this year
and that it is important for those to come out
early. Shelley Schwarz,
a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for
the first time ever
Democrats?
Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To
Haunt Them)
?He keeps saying it, and I?ve been thinking about
it, and so here
I am,? Schwarz said.
Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but
voted early in 2024
because he is ?horrified by the state of the
country,? Hillyard
said. Three other voters he spoke to said they
moved to Arizona from
blue states to support Trump.
Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%,
according to The New
York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the
state in 2020 by less
than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former
president won the
state against former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
in 2016
We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton
chokefest and shocked
expressions on CBS talking heads.
I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been
plotting their
cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they
have up their
sleeves this time.
Where do you get these wild stories?
Stay blind.
And stupid as well.
*Just a few anomalies regarding the 2020 election.*
1. Six states changed their election laws two months
before the 2020
election by executive fiat, instead of going through the
proper channels
in the legislature. That is a violation of their state
constitutions and
that in and of itself is enough to invalidate the
results of the 2020
election.
2. Mark Zuckerberg, hard left, spent $450 million
dollars of private
money on our elections. After the 2020 election analysis
revealed that
most of that money went to benefit Democrats.
3. 6 swing states stopped counting the votes on election
night for the
first time in American history. At the time that they
stopped counting
the votes, Donald Trump was ahead of Biden in each of them.
4. The unelected tech oligarchs in conjunction with the
FBI in this
country censored a very important story about Hunter
Biden?s laptop and
Joe Biden?s corruption. People who worked in the
intelligence community,
came out and said it was Russian disinformation only to
have that laptop
be admitted into evidence as part of an FBI
investigation and criminal
prosecution of Hunter Biden. Polling after the election
showed that if
people knew about the Hunter Biden laptop story it
would?ve changed 17%
of the vote.
5. 2,036,041 ballots were touched by anomalies.
6. 923 American citizens filled out affidavits alleging
voter fraud, and
signed them under penalties of perjury.
7. 50 plus courts blocked evidentiary hearings into the
alleged fraud
found in 2020.
8. Prior to 2020 there were four other contested
elections, one in
Florida, one in the 78th district of Missouri, one in
the ninth district
of North Carolina, and one in the 22nd district of New
York. In every
single one of those four instances, there was an
evidentiary hearing. In
the 2020 election, there was no evidentiary hearing. For
the first time
in American history.
9. No election contest in American history has had 923
fact witnesses
sign under penalties of perjury and stake their personal
freedom in
testimony to attest to the irregularities and legal
issues found in
various states.
10. 37 states in the United States of America altered
their absentee or
mail in ballots ballot integrity procedures before the
2020 election.
11. If those 37 states used the same ballot integrity
procedures that
they used in 2018, swing states would?ve found an
upwards of 30,000 more
ineligible ballots.
12. In Pennsylvania, counties allowed new ballots to be
filled out after
the election.
13. Any one of those is enough to say that there was
enough fraud in the
2020 election to doubt the outcome. Can I prove Donald
Trump would?ve
won the election if the Democrats hadn?t cheated? No I
can?t prove a
counter-narrative, but I can tell you that this amount
of fraud leads
any reasonable person to the conclusion that Joe Biden
didn?t win.
The insurrection therefore was on 11/3/2020.
1/6 was a lawful protest with permits that got out of
hand. Unlike
Democrats who spent 10 months burning down this country
to the tune of
$2 billion dollars, and injuring 740 police officers
nationwide, the
capital riot had a couple million dollars in damages,
140 police
officers that were injured and zero deaths. Except the 3
Trump
supporters who were unarmed and killed without any
investigation by the
corrupt government.
Anybody who is clutching their pearls about January 6
without mentioning
the fact that there was a large federal presence and
many anomalies that
have yet to be answered is a liar and a partisan hack.
You sound like an uninformed stage 10 TDS patient who
needs to detox
from CNN and MSNBC.
You can endorse the cackling communist from California,
but..don?t you
dare pretend like the reason why you?re doing it is
because Donald Trump
did something wrong.
Claim 1: States changing election laws by executive fiat
It?s true that some states changed voting procedures
before the 2020 election
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to expand
access to mail-in voting.
However, these changes were largely made through
emergency powers or by state
election boards and officials, often with judicial
review. In most cases, the
courts ruled these changes were legal under state
constitutions. Even in
states where the legality was questioned, no court
invalidated the election
results based solely on these procedural changes.
Claim 2: Mark Zuckerberg spent $450 million to benefit
Democrats
Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated to a non-partisan
group, the Center for
Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which provided funds to help
local election
offices run elections during the pandemic. While some of
the funds went to
areas that leaned Democrat (which are often more
populous), Republican-leaning
areas also received funds. There?s no evidence that this
funding was used to
favor one party over another.
Claim 3: 6 swing states stopped counting votes on
election night
In 2020, due to the unprecedented number of mail-in
ballots, some states did
stop counting votes temporarily on election night. This
wasn?t a unique event
in history?vote counting has often extended beyond
election night in previous
elections, especially in states with close races. Mail-in
ballots take longer
to process, and the delays were expected and announced
beforehand. Trump?s
early lead in some states was due to the ?red mirage?
phenomenon, where
same-day in-person votes (which leaned Republican) were
counted first,
followed by mail-in ballots (which leaned Democrat).
Claim 4: Hunter Biden laptop story and censorship
The Hunter Biden laptop story was published just weeks
before the 2020
election. Some media outlets and social media platforms
took steps to limit
its distribution, citing concerns about the authenticity
of the information
and potential foreign interference. While subsequent
investigations confirmed
that the laptop was part of a legitimate investigation
into Hunter Biden,
there is no evidence that the suppression of this story
changed the election
outcome. Polls suggesting otherwise are speculative.
Claim 5: 2 million ballots touched by anomalies
This claim is vague and lacks concrete evidence. Many
claims about voting
anomalies have been thoroughly investigated, and none
have shown widespread
fraud that would alter the outcome of the election.
Anomalies are common in
every election, but they are generally clerical or minor
errors that do not
affect the overall result.
Claim 6: 923 affidavits alleging voter fraud
While it?s true that some people signed affidavits,
affidavits are not proof
of fraud?they are simply statements by individuals. Many
of these affidavits
were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence or
because they described
misunderstandings of normal election processes. Simply
filing an affidavit
does not prove fraud.
Claim 7: 50+ courts blocked evidentiary hearings
Many courts rejected election fraud claims because the
evidence presented was
insufficient or non-existent. Courts didn?t block
hearings out of bias but
rather followed legal standards that require concrete
evidence before
proceeding. Most cases were dismissed because they didn?t
meet the burden of
proof.
Claim 8: No evidentiary hearing for the 2020 election
There were numerous hearings and legal challenges related
to the 2020
election, including in key states like Georgia, Arizona,
and Pennsylvania. In
most cases, judges found no credible evidence of
widespread fraud. The idea
that there was ?no evidentiary hearing? is false.
Claim 9: 923 fact witnesses signed under perjury
While hundreds of people may have signed affidavits, it?s
important to note
that many of these affidavits were dismissed by courts
due to a lack of
supporting evidence. An affidavit alone does not
constitute proof, and many
were based on misunderstandings or hearsay rather than
direct knowledge of
fraud.
Claim 10: 37 states altered absentee or mail-in ballot
procedures
Yes, many states made adjustments to their mail-in voting
procedures in
response to the pandemic, which is entirely legal if done
in accordance with
state laws. These changes were made to ensure voter
safety and accessibility.
Courts generally upheld these changes as legal, with some
minor exceptions.
Claim 11: 30,000 more ineligible ballots in swing states
There is no evidence to support the claim that 30,000
ineligible ballots were
cast in swing states. Audits and recounts in key states,
including Georgia and
Arizona, have consistently shown that the number of
ineligible ballots was
extremely low and nowhere near enough to affect the
outcome of the election.
Claim 12: Pennsylvania allowed new ballots after the
election
This claim is false. Pennsylvania followed court-approved
deadlines for
accepting mail-in ballots that were postmarked by
Election Day and received
within a certain window after the election, which is a
standard practice.
There is no evidence that ballots were illegally counted
after the election.
Claim 13: Any one of these is enough to invalidate the
election
Each of these claims has been investigated and largely
debunked. While there
were some procedural changes due to the pandemic, none of
the claims provide
credible evidence of widespread fraud that would
invalidate the results of the
2020 election.
January 6 vs. Summer 2020 Protests
The January 6 attack was not a lawful protest. It was a
violent breach of the
U.S. Capitol aimed at overturning the results of a
democratic election. There
were investigations into the conduct of Capitol Police,
but there is no
evidence of a government cover-up of the deaths of
protesters. In contrast,
while the summer 2020 protests did lead to property
damage and injuries, they
were largely protests against police brutality, and
widespread condemnation
occurred when violence took place.
In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most
scrutinized elections in
U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support
claims of widespread
fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims
made here have been
widely investigated, with no proof supporting the
narrative that the election
was stolen.