4119
Comments (575)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
67
LaPastillaEscarlata 67 points ago +67 / -0

The thing is, if it is proven that they were given ballots to shred, this is in our favor. Destroying evidence implies guilt and judges will see it that way. Of course the judges could look the other way or be paid off or threatened, but in terms of evidence, them releasing this statement is a good thing regardless of whether or not they're just covering their own asses.

33
Madman2020 33 points ago +33 / -0

Clarence Thomas is overseeing Georgia.

17
No_Malarkey_Joe 17 points ago +17 / -0

It's been quite a while Joseph...

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
6
LaPastillaEscarlata 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yep, they should have notified authorities before shredding everything. I can't figure out if the election officials were really that brazen or if they're just too stupid to realize that this would make things look even worse for them.

4
TwoStar 4 points ago +4 / -0

They would rather be found guilty of "oops" destroying evidence than have evidence of conspiracy to defraud the election. See Clinton, Hillary (2016).

12
tormundmembersonly 12 points ago +12 / -0

I agree, but I’m old enough to remember when Hillary Clinton literally smashed devices with a hammer and it didn’t imply guilt for her. We must keep pushing.

-2
redstampede -2 points ago +4 / -6

It might be possible to prove there are ballots in the shredded material. That doesn't mean the company did anything wrong, since if they were doing their jobs right they should have no idea what's going into the shredder.