All Trump’s Major Election Fraud Lies Debunked.

A handy reference for those interested in the facts. Most of the familiar and oft-repeated Trump lies about the “rigged election” are dealt with in detail. Reality once again shows its profoundly liberal bias.

24 thoughts on “All Trump’s Major Election Fraud Lies Debunked.

    1. I always expect a “progressive” spin by the WAPO, but at least they work relentlessly to be accurate. That’s why I find it useful/mandatory to cross check virtually everything.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “Does anyone expect otherwise from The Washington Post?”

      Good point.

      I see the article as pure propaganda. This is evident in two main ways:

      (1) Arbitrary selection of “facts” to “check.” (Trump’s claims do not represent the entire universe of concerns about election fraud.)

      (2) Use of loaded language. (Note the headings in bold: “Trump claim” and “Reality.”)

      The big lie of the piece is that all allegations of election fraud are “baseless.” The article doesn’t even come close to substantiating that assertion. At best it only shows that some Trump statements can be associated with counter statements, some of which are highly dubious.

      WAPO, like other media, works hard to construct and sustain an alternate reality.


      1. The big lie of the piece is that all allegations of election fraud are “baseless.”

        Uh, nonsense. You cannot prove a negative. It is up to those who claim that there was massive fraud that stole the election to provide the evidence to support their claim. Until they do, their allegations remain “baseless.”

        As for that “arbitrary selection” what serious allegation did they miss? And even if there is one or two how does that affect their fact-based debunking of this long list of Trump’s egregious lies?

        The “alternate reality” is the one created for the weak-minded by Donald Trump. He has personally explained why he does it (to sow confusion and reduce the credibility of legitimate journalists) and his spokesperson is famously the author of the euphemism for lies that is now a commonplace – “Alternative facts.”

        Liked by 3 people

        1. RE: “what serious allegation did they miss?”

          Obviously, they missed all the allegations contained in affidavits filed in the various lawsuits. In other words, WAPO pretends to be comprehensive, but isn’t. The pretense is part of what makes the article propaganda.


          1. RE: “What allegation did they miss?”

            I have posted at least eight of them here in the forum. Just search on “You can’t say there is no evidence” to find them.


      2. “ “What I have, at best, is a hearsay affidavit,” said [Michigan Judge Cynthia] Stephens. “If there is something in that affidavit that would indicate that the [witness] observed activity that would be a depravation of the rights of poll watchers, I want you to please focus my attention on that. … ‘I heard somebody else say something.’ Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on now.”

        In Pennsylvania, Trump’s lawyers had suggested their poll observers had been shut out of the locations where ballots were being counted. So when the lawyers acknowledged that the observers had, in fact, been permitted within 15 feet of the poll workers, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond, appointed by then-President George W. Bush, appeared baffled.

        “I’m sorry, then what’s your problem?” Diamond chirped.

        “Judge Timothy M. Kenny took umbrage: “Where’s the facts about that?” On Friday, Kenny, who has served on the state court for more than 24 years, rejected the request to block the certification of results and order an independent audit. He did not mince words, describing the GOP poll watchers’ “interpretation” of events inside the Detroit counting facility at the TFC Center as “incorrect and not credible.”

        “Plaintiffs rely on numerous affidavits from election challengers who paint a picture of sinister fraudulent activities occurring both openly in the TCF Center and under the cloak of darkness,” Kenny wrote, noting that those claims were “decidedly contradicted” by an election expert put forth by the defense.”

        And on and on. In many cases affidavits were submitted, then withdrawn as to test the waters.

        I would say most, if not all, the affidavits were similarly handled. At some point, credibility suffers if all your witnesses are either not reliable, hearsay based, or pointless.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. One point I might add is that Trumps legal teams certainly put forth the most credible affidavits they had. And still numerous judges from various states and at all levels including federal appeals courts rejected the claims.

          It is kind of like Kayleigh McEnany dropping off a thick binder of the “healthcare plan”. Turned out it was just some policy papers. But it made a image for propaganda.

          Early on Trump had lawyer from some of the biggest, elite firms with all the “evidence” and they could not make a dent in the judiciary. And they finally all quit.

          This is why Trump is making an end run by threatening Republican officials directly. And engaging outside parties, like Thomas More Society and a bunch of red states to create the illusion of serious issues through volume.

          In “Art of the Deal”, there is an incident that foretold this tactic. He hired earthmoving equipment, trucks and a bunch of “workers” to dig and run around looking busy on a lot in NYC. Then he drove investors by in his limo to show progress on the project.

          He called it truthful hyperbole. In reality it was a con job.

          Fast forward to now and, “Bada bing, Bada boom”.

          Liked by 1 person

      3. …”sustain an alternate reality.”

        You would now all about alternate reality now, wouldn’t you? Most of your posts bend facts to the alternative views of actual reality. Or in some case use alternative facts.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. “Does anyone expect otherwise from The Washington Post?”

      I certainly don’t. Reality matters. A lot. That is why I check their material before believing things that Trump supporters find in crevices of the dark web.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “Irony thy name is….”

            It is ironic, isn’t it, when someone uses words without any connection to their real meanings, or posts comments where others must guess at the message?


          2. That’s not what the Dark Web is.

            The Dark Web refers to internet traffic that is not accessible through ordinary browsers. Your medical information transmitted between your doctor and your insurance company, for example, travels by way of the Dark Web. It’s just encrypted information that requires specific software to access.


          3. Uh, you do not have a good understanding of what the term “Dark Web” refers to.

            A lot of traffic on the Internet is encrypted. Anytime you use the HTTPS:// protocol you are using encryption. The actual “dark web” refers to the universe of mainly illicit underground sites that are not visible to ordinary browsers.


            You are welcome.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Pretty good and accurate article. Financial institutions particularly devote huge amounts of money in protecting their systems from activity on non-indexed sites that provide hacking tips/software. The next generation of WEB protocols are addressing some of the most dangerous and blatant security concerns.

            And yeah, it does serve as a meeting/landing place for the conspiracy minded lunatic fringe…

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s