6754
Comments (253)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
29
PGM92 29 points ago +29 / -0

Rudy didn't use these statistical improbabilities in the presser this morning. Do you anticipate these statistical improbabilities will be a core argument moving forward?

Also, how critical is AZ at this juncture?

23
MAGA1775 23 points ago +23 / -0

I don't know why the Trump campaign are not presenting these statistical impossibilities. There's so many. I think that's a better and more apparent route than saying "poll watchers weren't allowed to watch the count"

30
geocitiesuser 30 points ago +30 / -0

credible Witnesses are hard evidence. Statistical outliers are soft evidence.

Right now, they know they have proof certain, that the poll watchers were not allowed to observe, and very specific laws were definitely broken.

With that, there will be a "discovery" process, where GOP Lawyers can grill and investigate the shit out of everyone and everything.

5
TheCrisp11 [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

Exactly. This data in PA is a crazy coincidence, but it isn't PROOF of fraud. You have to find the dead body before charging someone for murder.