“the committee on getting Trump out of the 2024 election” met this afternoon

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
thursday, october 13, 2022 at 2:19:00 p.m. edt

“the committee on getting Trump out of the 2024 election” met this afternoon, during which time they repeated the phrase, “there was no evidence of widespread fraud.”

Those words were plastered on the screen for minutes at a time.

“There’s no evidence of widespread fraud.”

I look at that statement in two ways:

What’s considered “widespread fraud”? In the deciding five states, there were, I believe, less than 20,000 votes in each state, that constituted the difference in whether Biden or Trump carried the state. Is 20,000 considered “widespread”?I’ve never heard a number mentioned about how “widespread” is defined. I don’t define that number (20,000) as “widespread,” but actually, quite limited. Still, a limited amount of election fraud would more than do the job in changing the election results—and the semantics of limited vs. widespread, becomes meaningful.

Second, doesn’t it make sense that “no evidence” of fraud would be the manner in which such tampering would be perpetrated by any software company? Would they leave clues of such an act? No—they would cover it up—and who would know?

So that phrase means very little to me, in the context of how the democrats want me to perceive it.

They wanted Trump out then—and then want him out in 2024.

--GRA

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
thursday, october 13, 2022 at 3:51:00 p.m. edt

Also, to twist the political knife even further, the committee (lynchers) decided it would issue a subpoena to force Trump to testify.

This one may go through the court system, up to SCOTUS, who supposedly, has not ruled on the matter in the past, of its legality in these circumstances (ex-President testifying about an incident while President).

--GRA