Reply With Quote
sure, well i don't know, maybe, maybe not.
sure, well i don't know, maybe, maybe not.
notliberal. lol
totally debunked, G F Y
No
Meh
I read the first two words on the Landing page and knew the answer
the guy is flyin around all crazy
is it duck season?
Wabbit season
duck season
If Ko 's lips are moving, HE'S LYING
Trump’s “election integrity” chair says new data backs up his voter fraud claims. He’s wrong.
He gets a big thing wrong about New Hampshire law
But Kobach is misinterpreting New Hampshire law.
The state doesn’t necessarily require that someone become an official resident to register to vote.
And, in fact, students — who make up majority of these voters with out-of-state IDs — are placed in a different category (“domiciled”) since they don’t plan to stay in the state long-term but do spend most of their time in New Hampshire while they’re in school.
This category lets them vote without ever obtaining an in-state ID.
In short, the claim that this new data is proof of voter fraud rests on a factual error and misinterpretation of New Hampshire law.
Given that research studies have found time and time again that voter fraud is extremely rare to nonexistent,
conservative media and Kobach’s claims simply don’t hold up to scrutiny.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...r-fraud-kobach
You rightwingnuts are hilariously stupid fools for oligarchy's lies and propaganda.
The Repugs are a much greater threat to America, even without Pootin's help, which the Repugs anyway accept completely.
LOL * 100Especially considering revelations made in video footage taken by Project Veritas shows:
Debunked bullpuckey.
wabbit season
duck season
n Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump’s “election integrity” commission was preparing to meet in New Hampshire when a state court issued a major ruling: New Hampshire’s harsh new voting restrictions, which would impose fines and jail time on voters who fail to provide certain do entation, cannot be enforced in Tuesday’s special election. According to the court, the law’s penalties likely violate the state cons ution, which guarantees all adult residents “an equal right to vote in any election.”
The court’s order cons uted an oblique rebuke to the commission’s very purpose. New Hampshire’s GOP-controlled legislature passed its voter suppression law in response to Trump’s allegations that mass voter fraud swung the state against him in 2016. Trump formed his voter fraud commission to prove that such fraud gave his opponent millions of illegal votes in the Granite State and beyond. Just last week, commision co-chair Kris Kobach claimed he had “proof” that votes were stolen in the state. Now a court has examined the evidence—and found no such proof. The decision is a well-timed reminder that this administration’s wild claims of voter fraud cannot stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...his_judge.html
A rather rare temporary restraining order was issued:
https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws....1505216669.pdf
DJT, prevaricator in chief:
http://www.wmur.com/article/exhausti...in-nh/20955267-- Out of more than 94,000 names of people with the same first and last names and dates of birth who voted in New Hampshire and at least one of the other 27 states in the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck program, all but 142 were accounted for as being different voters in each state
-- In New Hampshire, out of 86,952 people who registered to vote on state primary or general election day in 2016, a total 6,033 did not present photo IDs and as a result signed affidavits swearing that a New Hampshire community was their domicile.
-- The secretary of state’s office verified that all but 458 cases were legitimate New Hampshire voters, and referred those 458 cases to the attorney general's office. The attorney general's office was able to verify that 392 of those voters were in fact domiciled in New Hampshire and registered and voted properly.
-- The attorney general’s office was unable to verify the domiciles of the remaining 66 after exhausting all investigative resources, but a top attorney in the office said it does not mean an unlawful vote was cast in any of those 66 cases.
notliberal. lol
“If you’re here today, you can vote and be gone,” one poll official unwittingly told Veritas.
“If you’re here today, you can vote and be gone,” one poll official unwittingly told Veritas.
“If you’re here today, you can vote and be gone,” one poll official unwittingly told Veritas.
Isn't Veritas run by that fraud O'Keefe?
eyup.
the only "voter fraud" in this case was claiming that there was fraud. Good enough to fool the ducks crowd, so it achieved its purpose.
Do you think that misleading claims of voter fraud are good things Darrin?
misleading? this one was threadbare.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
