Over 432,000 Votes Removed From Trump In Pennsylvania, Data Scientists Say

HoustonHusky

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/over-432000-votes-removed-trump-pennsylvania-data-scientists-say

Yet another set of amazing coincidences that all go one way...

#BananaRepublic

TheKobeStopper

I guess it’s also an amazing coincidence that the group finding this is led by Sean Hannity’s producer.

HoustonHusky

TheKobeStopper said:

I guess it’s also an amazing coincidence that the group finding this is led by Sean Hannity’s producer.

Why attack the facts when you can attack the people?

TheKobeStopper

HoustonHusky said:

TheKobeStopper said:

I guess it’s also an amazing coincidence that the group finding this is led by Sean Hannity’s producer.

Why attack the facts when you can attack the people?

Why use facts when you can use alternative facts?

HoustonHusky

TheKobeStopper said:

HoustonHusky said:

TheKobeStopper said:

I guess it’s also an amazing coincidence that the group finding this is led by Sean Hannity’s producer.

Why attack the facts when you can attack the people?

Why use facts when you can use alternative facts?

Sounds serious...where are your alternative facts again?

MelloDawg

HoustonHusky said:

TheKobeStopper said:

HoustonHusky said:

TheKobeStopper said:

I guess it’s also an amazing coincidence that the group finding this is led by Sean Hannity’s producer.

Why attack the facts when you can attack the people?

Why use facts when you can use alternative facts?

Sounds serious...where are your alternative facts again?

I think loss after loss after loss in court trying to demonstrate fraud and evidence to overturn results is a decent start for these facts.

HHusky

I'm sure THIS is the big one.

AOG

THIS HAS LEGS

DoogieMcDoogerson

MelloDawg said:

HoustonHusky said:

TheKobeStopper said:

HoustonHusky said:

TheKobeStopper said:

I guess it’s also an amazing coincidence that the group finding this is led by Sean Hannity’s producer.

Why attack the facts when you can attack the people?

Why use facts when you can use alternative facts?

Sounds serious...where are your alternative facts again?

I think loss after loss after loss in court trying to demonstrate fraud and evidence to overturn results is a decent start for these facts.

But are they really "losing" in court? Do your homework.

Lots of rulings like this:

"The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and filed the case too late, that the federal court had no jurisdiction, and that the relief was impossible to grant"

"The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on December 9, 2020. The plaintiff also lacked legal standing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Summary_of_post-election_lawsuits

Courts won't even touch this and look at evidence in most cases.