Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is Stunned by the Amount of Potential 2020 Election Fraud.

a reply to: interupt42

At least he is doing something about the mandates. If you even bothered with my link.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
He is not wrong. If we don’t fight now we will be destroyed.

Off-topic, but loosely related..

We may need to do an entire PURGE of top government officials at the State and National level.

The 2020 FDA commissioner has revealed that "Social Distancing Guidelines" were totally made up. No testing was done. Probably some sheep control-mechanism from the mind of sadistic Anthony Fauci. "6 foot rule" was/is bullsh'it.

Source: www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

At least he is doing something about the mandates. If you even bothered with my link.

1. you posted cnn . fake news.

2. He isn't the only one doing something about the mandates and ofcourse he will since he is a republican and everything is politicized. So he needs to keep the left vs right paradigm sh1t show going and tell his supporters what they want to hear, but wake me up when some accountability comes from it. Talk ,suing, and congressional investigations are great fun and produce lots of political zingers and bragging rights , but in the end true accountability never is part of it. Both parties have an impeccable record of getting their followers hope up and distracted with harsh language while nothing changes.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

But the question is who were the 70,000 unverified votes for?

Are you assuming they are all for biden? Why can't they all be for trump?
What if some are for biden some are for trump and even if we remove all 70,000 biden still wins?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: incoserv

There is no evidence that Trump won the election. To date the overwhelming majority of fraudulent votesidentified were for Trump. Facts and common sense tells us Trump lost the election....and likely lost it by a larger margin than originally counted.

Unlike the Trump worshipers, I know the difference between cold hard facts and pure speculation.

quote the report that shows that. I've not seen it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Xcalibur254

"I will really do some stuff but there's a cleverly worded disclaimer in what I'm saying which means I won't be doing anything. Now please donate, suckers."

just to be clear, is this where the goal posts have landed? I've been chasing them for some time, and I'm tired. Once I understand what must be shown to at least have people understand what the audit showed, it will be easier to talk about.

originally posted by: network dude
just to be clear, is this where the goal posts have landed?

They're the same as before, this guy won't do jack **** except tell you what you want to hear. Memberberries 'lock her up'? This is the 2021/22 version of that.

"We're gonna lock so many people up. So many. So many election fraudsters will be indicted. Tick-mofo'ing-tock. I'm going to drop indictments. So many great indictments. You'll get tired of getting indicted. Any day now. Really. Any day. Oh, don't forget to donate." - Mark Brnovich

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

But the question is who were the 70,000 unverified votes for?

Are you assuming they are all for biden? Why can't they all be for trump?
What if some are for biden some are for trump and even if we remove all 70,000 biden still wins?

they may all be for Trump. It's possible that hordes of Trump supporters took it upon themselves to capitalize on the mail in ballots and printed hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, but didn't count on the insurmountable popularity of Joey Biden. But since Biden won, we don't need to worry about any of that. or is it important to find any fraud and fix it?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
just to be clear, is this where the goal posts have landed?

They're the same as before, this guy won't do jack **** except tell you what you want to hear. Memberberries 'lock her up'? This is the 2021/22 version of that.

"We're gonna lock so many people up. So many. So many election fraudsters will be indicted. Tick-mofo'ing-tock. I'm going to drop indictments. So many great indictments. You'll get tired of getting indicted. Any day now. Really. Any day. Oh, don't forget to donate." - Mark Brnovich

you forget the past quickly.

There wasn't enough fraud to account for any changes. YOU said that with authority. As if it were fact. If I have to dig it out, I can, but I know you have enough integrity to admit to it. So, knowing that, we have a lot of fraud mentioined here. So far, we haven't a clue who benefited from it. The report didn't show that. But it did show fraud.

So I'm left with the question, if enough fraud is identified to show the winner was declared wrong, is that still not enough for you to admit it, or does it have to go to litigation and somehow be run through the courts or whatever venue is appropriate for identifying fraud? This little game can't keep going when we consider facts, but when the goal posts are moved, the end can never be seen.

So I'm asking you point blank, what will it take for you to finally say, "Network Dude you were right, and I was wrong, there was enough fraud to be a problem."?

originally posted by: network dude
There wasn't enough fraud to account for any changes.

There isn't, and I stand by that.

So, knowing that, we have a lot of fraud mentioined here.

'Mentioning' fraud is great, maybe someone should turn that into an affidavit and tick-tock that Kraken into court.

But it did show fraud.

Did it? Because I certainly don't see Mr. Attorney General saying, 'See dis, yo? See dis right here? Dis be da fraud'. Nope, he's just making mouth noises that people are using to confirm their bias.

So I'm asking you point blank, what will it take for you to finally say, "Network Dude you were right, and I was wrong, there was enough fraud to be a problem."?

Convictions. Election fraud is a felony, perceived election fraud is not. You either have the goods or you don't and I can tell you from the weak ass track record of the Fraud Brigade that you don't.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: BrujaRebooted

At least he is doing something about the mandates. If you even bothered with my link.

1. you posted cnn . fake news.

2. He isn't the only one doing something about the mandates and ofcourse he will since he is a republican and everything is politicized. So he needs to keep the left vs right paradigm sh1t show going and tell his supporters what they want to hear, but wake me up when some accountability comes from it. Talk ,suing, and congressional investigations are great fun and produce lots of political zingers and bragging rights , but in the end true accountability never is part of it. Both parties have an impeccable record of getting their followers hope up and distracted with harsh language while nothing changes.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue, but when the outcome is admitting Trump won, at least this count, the left won't budge, and would likely slaughter babies and baby seals to prevent that from being found out. So we are left with hoping like hell that the republicans will do something.

A group of honest folks would be nice to see in a place of power, but even typing that is comical.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
There wasn't enough fraud to account for any changes.

There isn't, and I stand by that.

So, knowing that, we have a lot of fraud mentioined here.

'Mentioning' fraud is great, maybe someone should turn that into an affidavit and tick-tock that Kraken into court.

But it did show fraud.

Did it? Because I certainly don't see Mr. Attorney General saying, 'See dis, yo? See dis right here? Dis be da fraud'. Nope, he's just making mouth noises that people are using to confirm their bias.

So I'm asking you point blank, what will it take for you to finally say, "Network Dude you were right, and I was wrong, there was enough fraud to be a problem."?

Convictions. Election fraud is a felony, perceived election fraud is not. You either have the goods or you don't and I can tell you from the weak ass track record of the Fraud Brigade that you don't.

OK, so the goal post is a conviction for Fraud. Now, once we have a conviction, and the fraud shows enough to change the results, you will admit you were wrong? I kind of have to hear you say it so I know for sure the movement of the posts won't be a factor. And yes, I understand that it's unlikely due to assholes being in charge. I just happen to think that eventually, this won't be able to be ignored and something will have to happen.

a reply to: network dude

knowing that, we have a lot of fraud mentioined here

FWIW I think this election was as fair as sending a intern to bill clintons bedroom at night when he is all alone.

The issue is not even showing evidence or that fraud occurred, the issue is the lack of accountability.

Everyone knows Epstein didn't kill himself ,yet nothing has or will come from it.

The system is so corrupted that they don't care about exposing evidence or letting the truth come out or throwing it in your face, because they have nothing to worry about. They are the system and they never prosecute or hold anyone at high levels accountable. its all a show.

The only thing that evidence and truth is used for is political zingers to keep the left vs the right paradigm sh1t show going and allow for the political cheerleaders to proudly bump their chest to show how their party is better and less evil.

So my prediction is that Mr Brnovich will convince those that are already convinced that fraud occurred ,that fraud did in fact occur, but with no worthy indictments or accountability to follow.

However, the benefit is the right will be able to use the zingers that comes out from this in the next election to remind you how corrupted the OTHER side is and get you to vote for Romney because the other side is the MORE evil . Then the other Side will use it to say how crazy the OTHER side is and its all politics and nothing more will come from it.

its an infinite cycle with no actions and only accusations and fear mongering from both sides that makes people think that the they are right and that the OTHER side is more evil or crazy in order to keep you voting between the 2 party system. We cant afford to take a risk and vote 3rd party this coming election, because look at how evil the OTHER side is .

originally posted by: network dude
OK, so the goal post is a conviction for Fraud. Now, once we have a conviction, and the fraud shows enough to change the results, you will admit you were wrong?

Would I? Of course. Will this happen? You have a better chance of getting Jesus to be your personal Uber for the next millennium.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
OK, so the goal post is a conviction for Fraud. Now, once we have a conviction, and the fraud shows enough to change the results, you will admit you were wrong?

Would I? Of course. Will this happen? You have a better chance of getting Jesus to be your personal Uber for the next millennium.

I know what obstacles I have in this, but when discussing it with others, it's really frustrating to have the rules change on the regular. First it was not enough fraud exists to make a difference, now it's convictions. That's fine, it's my fault for not nailing this down before. But the audit found things wrong. maybe they aren't really wrong, or maybe they are. But now something should happen. And if it's found that fraud did happen, and we have someone to be charged for it, then we will all know that this wasn't the "most secure election in the history of man". My paycheck looks the same either way, but internet points are forever.

a reply to: interupt42

so it should be ignored.

3 months ago - Cyber Ninjas are a bunch of hacks
Today - Cyber Ninjas show Biden won

You are all hysterical.

If ANYONE actually thinks there was no voter fraud they are only reading what they want.

Will anything be overturned? No. But is sure as hell should be used to make changes. Like CA sending out MORE ballots and TX tightening up the rules.

originally posted by: network dude
First it was not enough fraud exists to make a difference, now it's convictions.

These aren't mutually exclusive although to prove the latter you'll need the former.

You see what you want to see with this report which was 'DEY TERK ER ELECTION'. I see a muddled mess with intentionally vague information. Ask yourself, if the fraud was there why play coy?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
First it was not enough fraud exists to make a difference, now it's convictions.

These aren't mutually exclusive although to prove the latter you'll need the former.

You see what you want to see with this report which was 'DEY TERK ER ELECTION'. I see a muddled mess with intentionally vague information. Ask yourself, if the fraud was there why play coy?

explain how they (the one's who did the audit and released their findings) are playing coy.

originally posted by: network dude
explain how they (the one's who did the audit and released their findings) are playing coy.

Lack of detail. Part of it is sheer stupidity and part of it is intentional in my opinion.

"We found some 'duplicate ballots', OMG!"

"Who were they for?"

"Uhhhhhhhhhhhh."