There are many things infuriating about this massive fraud being perpetrated on the American people. (And I intend to address how to respond. But, please, nobody do anything stupid. And remember Christ still rules.) One of those things is the ignorant or hackish saying there is no evidence of massive fraud in this election.
Oh really? Project Veritas alone has presented a lot of evidence of late mail-in “votes” being given Election Day postmarks after Election Day. At least three whistleblowers from the USPS have testified to that. The latest is from Pennsylvania, of course. (And Biden has just fraudulently gone ahead in Pennsylvania.) Yesterday, two days after Election Day, the Pennsylvania whistleblower revealed:
“All these ballots that were coming in--today, tomorrow, yesterday—are all supposed to be postmarked the third,” said the postal service employee, who works out of the USPS General Mail Facility here.
The Project Veritas Insider said the supervisors are collecting the ballots and making sure they are postmarked.
“They're getting these ballots in and they're getting, they're taking them from us,” he said.
“We have to separate out the ballots and give them directly to the supervisors,” he said. “They're postmarking and they're at the office and taking them directly to the ballot box.”
This is just one whistleblower. There are at least two other USPS whistleblowers in other states. That begs the question of how much postal fraud do we not know about.
Especially in Pennsylvania, where Democrat hack judges are allowing mail-in ballots to count even if they come in late and even if signatures do not match, this Pennsylvania whistleblower alone just revealed the commission of fraud. Backdated postmarks alone are fraudulent. The only question is how massive the fraud is.
So don’t give me the crap that there is no evidence of serious fraud in this election. Just don’t.
2 comments:
An anonymous accusation lacking details like who committed the crime, when and where, is not evidence. It might have happened. But no court could act on that.
You can’t make a case with whistleblowers. You need sworn testimony. The impeachment, for example, was set off by a whistleblower. But sworn witnesses were required to make the case. They came forward and testified under oath. (Then of course they were fired.)
First, apologies for the delay in seeing your comment.
Second, there were HUNDREDS of sworn statements, not that it mattered.
wannabe
Post a Comment