Finally! Forensic Election Audit in Maricopa County (AZ) Begins Next Week

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Completely missed that commission, +1 to you

Thank you.

I actually panicked a little when I saw Phage's post.

Figured that he already did the search and knew that everything related to any Trump election had already been scrubbed.

He's wicked smart like that.

They missed a few.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

They missed a few.

Scrubbed? Right.

I posted a link myself.

a reply to: Phage


Snark was aimed at msm, not you.

You just got in the way.

a reply to: Phage
Hey why are you wasting your time on ATS .

Go to the symposium with all of your evidence and get that 5 MILLION DOLLARS.

LOL 5 million thats alot of money . This is just too funny

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

The MSM did not scrub the commission.

originally posted by: sciencelol
a reply to: Phage
Hey why are you wasting your time on ATS .

Go to the symposium with all of your evidence and get that 5 MILLION DOLLARS.

LOL 5 million thats alot of money . This is just too funny

Something. Something.

Proving a negative.

a reply to: sciencelol

Hey, why are you making me the topic?

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Rather than that, prove that the commission requested ballots and was refused "by Democrats."

It's your claim, after all. Support it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

The MSM did not scrub the commission.

A lot of the articles I remember are gone, but they did not completely scrub as I initially suspected.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

A lot of the articles I remember are gone

Sure they are. Perhaps you're a victim of the Mandela effect. In this timeline ballots were not requested.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: sciencelol

Hey, why are you making me the topic?

LOL. Im not making you the topic Im asking if you think your arguments would stand up and get that 5 MILLION?

I think Anyone who thinks they are right and have the evidence would go get that 5 million smackers.

It aint chump change.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Rather than that, prove that the commission requested ballots and was refused "by Democrats."

It's your claim, after all. Support it.

Which part, that commission requested the evidence?

Or that democrats refused to provide it?

I see both in previous links.

But have another one:


www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: sciencelol

Im not making you the topic Im asking if you think your arguments would stand up and get that 5 MILLION?

Which arguments would that be?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

A lot of the articles I remember are gone

Sure they are. Perhaps you're a victim of the Mandela effect. In this timeline ballots were not requested.

It happens.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: sciencelol

Im not making you the topic Im asking if you think your arguments would stand up and get that 5 MILLION?

Which arguments would that be?

I think the 5m is to disprove election fraud.

As in, proving a negative to win.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Which part, that commission requested the evidence?

This part:

To let the commission look at the ballots.

You also failed to note that Republican states also did not provide the full information requested.

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: sciencelol

Im not making you the topic Im asking if you think your arguments would stand up and get that 5 MILLION?

Which arguments would that be?

I think the 5m is to disprove election fraud.

As in, proving a negative to win.

This is the question which was put to me:

Im not making you the topic Im asking if you think your arguments would stand up and get that 5 MILLION?

I asked what such arguments I have made.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Which part, that commission requested the evidence?

This part:

To let the commission look at the ballots.

You are a master.



Preplanned retort:

I surrender the argument on this insignificant detail.

Not worth the time or effort.

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: sciencelol

Im not making you the topic Im asking if you think your arguments would stand up and get that 5 MILLION?

Which arguments would that be?

I think the 5m is to disprove election fraud.

As in, proving a negative to win.

The $5 million is for whomever can debunk the election fraud cyber-evidence being presented this coming week.

Thread on Subject: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Just having a little fun with it, have no idea what the details are.