Wow, this is a steaming pile of unconvincing flailing. “Who do you believe, us, objective fact checkers for the Associated Press, or your lying eyes?”
The mules recorded dumping piles of ballots in the drop boxes could’ve just been doing it for (large) families, or the disabled! And many were wearing gloves (in Atlanta) because of the cold, and COVID. And then they threw their rubber gloves in the trash because it, I dunno, warmed up quickly. 🙄🙄🙄
Pages and pages of fatuous and false deboonking like this only makes this movie seem even more credible than it already did.
The cell phone data is the same that prosecutors use in court against We The People, but when we use it against [them] they say its not accurate enough. Kek
Well, the cell phone data is good for proving where someone was, not what they were doing there.
Proving that somebody was within a few feet of where they were standing is pretty good proof they were at Trump’s rally for a precise amount of time, and where they traveled in that rally.
Being in certain areas (like the Capitol) during the rally was a crime, so a location is good enough to prove a crime occurred.
Proving that someone walked near a drop box a few times, when those drop boxes are deliberately placed on highly-trafficked areas, doesn’t prove a crime, because it wasn’t illegal to walk through public areas more than once. The location isn’t illegal.
So location data in this case doesn’t really prove a crime, because cell phone data can’t prove someone was dropping off fake votes. That would have to be corroborated by additional evidence for that specific individual.
I haven’t seen the film yet and can’t respond to its evidence.
Only the question as to why the cell phone location data was considered powerful evidence of criminal trespass and significantly less powerful (on its own) of proving that people were in the area to drop off fraudulent votes as part of a major criminal conspiracy.
Proving 2000 people were in areas he considered suspicious is fine. But if none of those areas are illegal, then he still has to match those 2000 data points with an actual crime.
I would hope the film presents compelling evidence proving each of those people actually committed a crime.I look forward to seeing it later.
Wow, this is a steaming pile of unconvincing flailing. “Who do you believe, us, objective fact checkers for the Associated Press, or your lying eyes?”
The mules recorded dumping piles of ballots in the drop boxes could’ve just been doing it for (large) families, or the disabled! And many were wearing gloves (in Atlanta) because of the cold, and COVID. And then they threw their rubber gloves in the trash because it, I dunno, warmed up quickly. 🙄🙄🙄
Pages and pages of fatuous and false deboonking like this only makes this movie seem even more credible than it already did.
The cell phone data is the same that prosecutors use in court against We The People, but when we use it against [them] they say its not accurate enough. Kek
Well, the cell phone data is good for proving where someone was, not what they were doing there.
Proving that somebody was within a few feet of where they were standing is pretty good proof they were at Trump’s rally for a precise amount of time, and where they traveled in that rally.
Being in certain areas (like the Capitol) during the rally was a crime, so a location is good enough to prove a crime occurred.
Proving that someone walked near a drop box a few times, when those drop boxes are deliberately placed on highly-trafficked areas, doesn’t prove a crime, because it wasn’t illegal to walk through public areas more than once. The location isn’t illegal.
So location data in this case doesn’t really prove a crime, because cell phone data can’t prove someone was dropping off fake votes. That would have to be corroborated by additional evidence for that specific individual.
I haven’t seen the film yet and can’t respond to its evidence.
Only the question as to why the cell phone location data was considered powerful evidence of criminal trespass and significantly less powerful (on its own) of proving that people were in the area to drop off fraudulent votes as part of a major criminal conspiracy.
Proving 2000 people were in areas he considered suspicious is fine. But if none of those areas are illegal, then he still has to match those 2000 data points with an actual crime.
I would hope the film presents compelling evidence proving each of those people actually committed a crime.I look forward to seeing it later.