Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/11/16/debunking-trumps-post-election-lies
Trump is a litigious bully so none of these antics should come as a surprise. Like most bullies he is also a coward. I look forward to his day in court unless he flees to a country that has no extradition treaty.
The greatest danger is NOT “Trump’s post-election lies”, the greatest danger is the organized crime syndicate disguised as the GOP, including the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC) fully supporting and enhancing the “lies”.
If Trump was the crux of the problem we would have no fears that electors will defy their respective states’ voters on December 14.
I was following a number of these right wing web sites claiming massive fraud had occurred.
A number of these examples and others were given yet I was able to determine they were false with only a very little time invested in research. Indeed this was so easy to do, I did not even bother looking into every incident as it became clear to me they were just making the stuff up as they went along.
Now here the thing. Entities like FOX News carried these same claims of fraud and in at least one instance (Tucker Carlson and his "dead people voted take) later apologized. The thing is why did they even present this as a story if it was so easy to determine that it was wrong?
One might excuse those millions of rubes that are out there like sock pockets repeating everything Trump says. They have no ability to think for themselves , but there no excuse for a news organization to present this nonsense as fact.
Again all of these false reports might well cover up genuine fraud but the rush and desire to label anything as fraud and to cite the most easily refuted sources as proofs of fraud only means ALL such claims will be dismissed.
Do your homework if you want to promote the notion that Trump lost due to fraud.
Oh and as to Mr Reich. Russiagate was also debunked by people who did their homework.
Disclaimer - I’m Australian so I don’t really have a horse in this race, so to speak. However, I find American politics fascinating and I’m married to an American.
Unlike you, Suspira, I don’t follow the right-wing websites but I do like to do as much research on claims that I can to see if I can find out if a story is factually correct; to find the sources; to find out the most information I can about a claim/story.
From what I can find on the claim about the postal worker who claimed he had overheard someone instruct others to backdate ballots, it seems like he did, then when questioned about it he made it up and then for some reason, he put out a youtube video (if it’s actually him) saying he didn’t recant.
Sadly, it gets to the point where I throw my hands up in the air, ask myself if it’s worth trying to find out what actually happened, and try to move on. Only it’s difficult to move on when the story just keeps going.
Is there a copy of the affidavit this bloke signed? How do we know this guy’s name? Did he or did he not recant and how do we know either way? Is there a source besides a youtube video to say that he didn’t? How do we know that the youtube video is actually the right bloke? So many questions and not enough answers.
Well I myself am a Canadian but that said, your point. When you try and dig down into these sources it tends to be one big circle where they cite a sort which cites a source which cites a source until you are back where you started.
It sort of what The Bush Administration did when they were trying to justify the war on Iraq. Someone in the administration would “leak” stuff to the media and then the Administration would cite that media account as their proof of WMDS.
As bad as that was, these circle jerks are orders of magnitude worse.
My understanding as to what that guy claimed about what he overheard is that once he recognized he might be facing jail time if it was determined he lied about the whole affair he backed down. Now he can make these kind of claims on youtube because of Free Speech rights but providing the same information to a public official investigating a potential crime is a different matter entirely.
Are you saying Russia did not attempt to interfere in American elections? The collusion angle was just a farce. But Russia did interfere. Several investigations have agreed on this. ~https://theconversation.com/fact-check-us-what-is-the-impact-of-russian-interference-in-the-us-presidential-election-146711