Republicans: continued

[Brian Peacock]

Is that the same USPS whistleblower who recanted their allegations of tampering?

USPS ‘Whistleblower’ in Pennsylvania ‘Completely Recanted’ Allegations of Election Fraud
U.S. Postal Service 'whistleblower' retracts his claims, officials say
US Postal Worker Retracts Allegations Of Ballot Tampering, Says Oversight Committee
USPS ‘Whistleblower’ in Pennsylvania ‘Completely Recanted’ Allegations of Election Fraud

11 Nov 2020

USPS Office of Inspector General confirmed that alleged whistleblower Richard Hopkins no longer stood behind his claims. Hopkins had signed an affidavit stating that Erie Postmaster Robert Weisenbach instructed USPS employees to collect mail-in ballots sent after Election Day and backdate them so they appeared to have been sent on or before Nov. 3. That was apparently not true.

“Here are the facts: Richard Hopkins is a USPS employee in Erie, Pa. He signed a sworn affidavit with allegations of ballot tampering/fraud and went public through Project Veritas. USPS [Inspector General] began investigating last week,” the House Oversight Committee said from its official Twitter account. “USPS IG investigators informed Committee staff today that they interviewed Hopkins on Friday, but that Hopkins RECANTED HIS ALLEGATIONS yesterday and did not explain why he signed a false affidavit.”

[Sean Hayden]

What's the evidence?

Simple enough to find, if you want to of course.

One example is the https://www.projectveritas.com/news/bre ... -the-only/

USPS whistleblower.

Of course, PV might not fit well in a 'Republicans' thread, but I think of them as 'very republican friendly'.

That's not evidence. It is a claim by Veritas that someone else told them that they were told to do something.

At least one other similar claim by Veritas was found to be completely false.

Is this what has convinced the Republican senators something happened?

If not, what's the evidence?

[L'Emmerdeur]

What's the evidence?

I can provide clear instances of voting fraud in Pennsylvania. There are other similar isolated examples. No surprise--it's long been known that there is some voting fraud in the US, just as it has long been known that voting fraud is an extremely rare thing in the US. It's not as if this issue has escaped the notice of the government and academic researchers. Trump himself created a presidential commission to find and expose voting fraud. It found the same thing as the many previous inquiries and was quietly disbanded.

Despite the claims of the Trump campaign and their official and unofficial legal representatives to the contrary, even the best evidence they provided didn't actually show widespread voting fraud. And while many of the cases were thrown out for failure to show standing, a fair number of them were dismissed due to the failure of the evidence. At least two reasons were cited by the courts: The evidence provided by the complainants failed to withstand scrutiny regarding veracity and/or it failed to support the allegations in the complaint. The expert witnesses were often completely unqualified or otherwise questionable. Their statements were riddled with errors and falsehoods.

Throughout, the suits were characterised by incompetence and misrepresentation. Incompetence and misrepresentation are hallmarks of shitty lawyers. Respectable law firms that had previously represented Trump looked at what was being given to them as evidence and looked at the actual facts on the ground (including statements from Trump's own government officials regarding the integrity of the election). They no doubt discussed all of this, in addition to their previous experience of Trump as a client (they couldn't fail to notice that he's a compulsive liar), and declined to represent him or his campaign.

Trump had shitty lawyers because only shitty lawyers were willing to represent him in presenting a mendacious farce as a legitimate court case.

[Cunt]

Is that the same USPS whistleblower who recanted their allegations of tampering?

USPS ‘Whistleblower’ in Pennsylvania ‘Completely Recanted’ Allegations of Election Fraud
U.S. Postal Service 'whistleblower' retracts his claims, officials say
US Postal Worker Retracts Allegations Of Ballot Tampering, Says Oversight Committee
USPS ‘Whistleblower’ in Pennsylvania ‘Completely Recanted’ Allegations of Election Fraud

11 Nov 2020

USPS Office of Inspector General confirmed that alleged whistleblower Richard Hopkins no longer stood behind his claims. Hopkins had signed an affidavit stating that Erie Postmaster Robert Weisenbach instructed USPS employees to collect mail-in ballots sent after Election Day and backdate them so they appeared to have been sent on or before Nov. 3. That was apparently not true.

“Here are the facts: Richard Hopkins is a USPS employee in Erie, Pa. He signed a sworn affidavit with allegations of ballot tampering/fraud and went public through Project Veritas. USPS [Inspector General] began investigating last week,” the House Oversight Committee said from its official Twitter account. “USPS IG investigators informed Committee staff today that they interviewed Hopkins on Friday, but that Hopkins RECANTED HIS ALLEGATIONS yesterday and did not explain why he signed a false affidavit.”

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/raw ... r-richard/

Yes, it certainly looks like nearly all of the news org's are in lockstep.

Have you heard of Project Veritas and their 'Wall of Shame'?

[WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N.Y.–Nov. 11, 2020] Project Veritas released raw audio today of Monday’s hours-long interview between USPS investigators and the USPS whistleblower, Richard Hopkins.

“USPS investigator Russell Strasser coerced Hopkins into doubting his original story, using psychological tactics to pretend there was a friendly and honest conversation taking place,” said James O’Keefe, the founder and CEO of Project Veritas.

“Strasser had absolutely no intention of investigating the very serious and valid claims of voter fraud brought forward by Richard Hopkins,” he said.

“What we are seeing here is not an investigation into voter fraud. This is plain and simple witness intimidation, and something must be done to prevent anyone from ever going through what Richard Hopkins has been put through,” he said.

[Sean Hayden]

It's not evidence. It's a claim by Veritas stating that someone told Project Veritas that they had been told by someone else to do something.

At least one other similar claim by Veritas could not be verified when their source refused to make the same claim to investigators. That's fairly straightforward.

Is that what has convinced Republican senators? If not, then what's the evidence?

[Cunt]

I guess that suggests you should look into what Paul has been referring to.

I am not going to continue skimming for examples for you to discount. You don't know of any evidence. Senator Paul claims there is some, you claim there is not.

Why do you think it is better to demand evidence from me, instead of listening to him?

[Tero]

Oregon Republicans:
Whereas there is growing evidence that the violence at the Capitol was a 'false flag' operation designed to discredit President Trump, his supporters, and all conservative Republicans; this provided the sham motivation to impeach President Trump in order to advance the Democrat goal of seizing total power, in a frightening parallel to the February 1933 burning of the German Reichstag."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics ... index.html

[Sean Hayden]

I guess that suggests you should look into what Paul has been referring to.

I am not going to continue skimming for examples for you to discount. You don't know of any evidence. Senator Paul claims there is some, you claim there is not.

Why do you think it is better to demand evidence from me, instead of listening to him?

You challenged Joe's assessment. I provided a way for you to do better than your usual incredulity. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume you would be familiar with the evidence given your willingness to defend senator Paul. If he is acting in good faith then it's likely because he is aware of some evidence. You should be as well. But you're not.

[Sean Hayden]

What's the evidence?

I can provide clear instances of voting fraud in Pennsylvania. There are other similar isolated examples. No surprise--it's long been known that there is some voting fraud in the US, just as it has long been known that voting fraud is an extremely rare thing in the US. It's not as if this issue has escaped the notice of the government and academic researchers. Trump himself created a presidential commission to find and expose voting fraud. It found the same thing as the many previous inquiries and was quietly disbanded.

Despite the claims of the Trump campaign and their official and unofficial legal representatives to the contrary, even the best evidence they provided didn't actually show widespread voting fraud. And while many of the cases were thrown out for failure to show standing, a fair number of them were dismissed due to the failure of the evidence. At least two reasons were cited by the courts: The evidence provided by the complainants failed to withstand scrutiny regarding veracity and/or it failed to support the allegations in the complaint. The expert witnesses were often completely unqualified or otherwise questionable. Their statements were riddled with errors and falsehoods.

Throughout, the suits were characterised by incompetence and misrepresentation. Incompetence and misrepresentation are hallmarks of shitty lawyers. Respectable law firms that had previously represented Trump looked at what was being given to them as evidence and looked at the actual facts on the ground (including statements from Trump's own government officials regarding the integrity of the election). They no doubt discussed all of this, in addition to their previous experience of Trump as a client (they couldn't fail to notice that he's a compulsive liar), and declined to represent him or his campaign.

Trump had shitty lawyers because only shitty lawyers were willing to represent him in presenting a mendacious farce as a legitimate court case.

--excellent summary as usual

Of course you do understand that you're only saying any of that because you won't look at the other side, don't you?

[Joe]

I guess that suggests you should look into what Paul has been referring to.

I am not going to continue skimming for examples for you to discount. You don't know of any evidence. Senator Paul claims there is some, you claim there is not.

Why do you think it is better to demand evidence from me, instead of listening to him?

You challenged Joe's assessment. I provided a way for you to do better than your usual incredulity. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume you would be familiar with the evidence given your willingness to defend senator Paul. If he is acting in good faith then it's likely because he is aware of some evidence. You should be as well. But you're not.

What's funny is that he didn't challenge my assessment. I was responding to Hermit's post about a couple of Republicans claiming to be offended by Biden's references to our racial problems in his inaugural speech.

It's been fun to see what poor Cunt has for "evidence" of election fraud though. It's a pretty good demonstration of how weak his case is when he keeps falling back on the assessment of an ophthalmologist.

[Sean Hayden]

Wait, so you weren't even talking about voter fraud!? That's what I get for assuming Cunt was responding to something someone actually said.

Why didn't you tell me sooner?

[L'Emmerdeur]

--excellent summary as usual

Of course you do understand that you're only saying any of that because you won't look at the other side, don't you?

Cheers

I've looked at what presented itself as the other side. I spent waay too many hours reading filings in the Trump campaign cases and reading various attorneys getting their kicks from going through them, in some instances line by line. In my defence I'd say that it was both entertaining and educational. Those cases were the available legal recourse for the Trump campaign to expose the massive fraud that it alleged, and you'd think what they presented would be the real thing.

Apparently there's some other evidence. Videos, but not the videos that have been seen already and revealed as not being evidence of voting fraud. Some other videos, I must assume. And affidavits! OMG can't forget the affidavits. Must be some other affidavits than those that have been dismissed in US courts by Republican-appointed judges.

Well, some day all the real evidence (not the bogus evidence that was shown to the courts) will be made public, and boy then will everybody be sorry.

[Joe]

Wait, so you weren't even talking about voter fraud!? That's what I get for assuming Cunt was responding to something someone actually said.

Why didn't you tell me sooner?

Sorry, I got busy with work and then dinner and didn't realize he'd gone off track until I caught up on the thread.

[JimC]

Wait, so you weren't even talking about voter fraud!? That's what I get for assuming Cunt was responding to something someone actually said.

Why didn't you tell me sooner?

Sorry, I got busy with work and then dinner and didn't realize he'd gone off track until I caught up on the thread.

I think you can just make the reasonable assumption that he'll always go off track...

In fact, so far off track that he is to be found in a strange, mutant landscape, as if the minds of Crumple and Q were entangled there...

[pErvinalia]

Wait, so you weren't even talking about voter fraud!? That's what I get for assuming Cunt was responding to something someone actually said.

Why didn't you tell me sooner?

It's generally safer to assume that Cunt is communicating in non-sequiturs.