I'm watching OAN, NewsMax, and Fox, and they're all running stories retracting their accusations that voter fraud occurred with voting machines. According to these stories, which ran on all three networks, these were just made up. None of the networks had any proof of their accusations about voting machines being created by Hugo Chavez, or being connected to George Soros, or changing votes.
Why would they run stories about voter fraud like that if they knew they were false? Why would they run stories like that if they didn't have any proof the stories were true?
And if the voter machine stories were true, why would they now run stories saying they are false?
It's so confusing.
Wow, it's almost like they're not legitimate news organizations... .
I have never heard any news story anywhere anytime claim Hugo Chavez created a voting machine. Please provide a source.
Nope. Please point me to the news reports from the outlets you claim are retracting their stories. The retraction, itself. Not another outlet claiming it has been done.
I'm not the one who started the thread. I would assume you'd want to appear credible. Maybe not. You've been less than credible in your recent posts that could be construed as rants.
Hmm . . . Speaking of being able to use Google . . .
Your original point was about news outlets running retractions for stories about Chavez creating manipulable voting machines, yet your first two links are of stories about a facebook user making a claim, (among many), that the Chavez family owns 28% of Smartmatic. And your third link primarily talks about vote switching—with a couple of sentences related to Chavez and Venezuela.
A better Google search would have served you better with just one example—an actual Lou Dobbs interview segment with Sidney Powell
I feel obligated to comment because if this were a Liberal-biased comment I would probably jump in. So . . .
First a couple of nit-picks. In looking at the "retraction" segments, and the stories about them that Google provided, I did not see anywhere that the networks admitted that the stories were not true, the 'clarification' clips I saw, (primarily Fox's segments), spoke to admitting that they had no proof that the stories were true—through presentations of contradicting narrative, not that they knew them to be false.
So, in the spirit of accuracy, the segments didn't actually "retract" anything. I would say it is fair to say they are backtracking—in high gear. They have been caught in their bias and are 'debunking' their own claims to save their legal butts.
As they say; for full disclosure, I initially thought the fraud claims were serious enough to warrant checking them out. They sounded plausible, and the presented "experts" seemed credible—at first glance. However, after hours of following internal links and Google search results, I stopped short of digging myself into a hole I couldn't get out of. I didn't find credible support for the claims, or the experts. And said so.
As for your question of why they would run stories like that . . . That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/maria-bar … -lou-dobbs
Dobbs, Bartiromo and Pirro all ran the same segment to clear Smartmatic, since Smartmatic only had a small part in Los Angeles county and not in any of the swing states where voter fraud was 'claimed' to have taken place.
Now, trying to offset Trump's narrative gives us one great example from Georgia's election committee chair, William T. Ligon, who based his stance that the election there was untrustworthy and that they should decertify the electoral vote by saying the following:
'Among the findings is the probability that “fraudulent ballots” were “purposely placed” into the final vote totals by election workers at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta.'
So Ligon thinks there's a probability, but cannot cite one specific example of actual fraud.
'The events at the State Farm Arena are particularly disturbing because they demonstrated intent on the part of election workers to exclude the public from viewing the counting of ballots, an intentional disregard for the law. The number of votes that could have been counted in that length of time was sufficient to change the results of the presidential election and the senatorial contests.'
Again, likely because poll watchers were kept at a far enough distance to keep vote counters safe, Ligon concludes that that gave election workers the opportunity to change votes. Not that he can prove that they actually DID, just that the opportunity existed.
This is why the courts threw out all of these arguments. They are speculative as opposed to factual. They are hypothesizing that fraud could have occurred, not that they can prove that it did.
Basing legal arguments on a 'probability that something could have taken place' or that 'votes could have been changed' is not actual evidence that fraud actually occurred. This is why the Trump legal team has lost 59-of-60 court cases, because they lack any factual cases to conclude widespread voter fraud.
Newsmax owner is a big Trump supporter, watched him on CNN around the time of the election and Trump was aggravated with FOX. He said his viewership was up and he started picking up where FOX left off on far-right conspiracy's. This week, however, the owners of the Dominion Voting Machines threatened to file a lawsuit against all three aforementioned for libel. They quickly changed their reporting.
by Readmikenow 3 months ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
by sunforged 9 years ago
Disenfranchisement Movement?Must have had my head in the dirt or clouds or something, but this topic is new "news" to me. Today I have read reports from Rolling Stone, 3rd party Think Tanks, Non Partisan Watchdog groups and many many traditional news sources.So has it been mainstream news...
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
?????can you believe thishttp://ronpaulflix.com/2012/03/blatant- … R.facebook
by Judy Specht 8 years ago
Why don't I have to show an ID to vote for president or anyone else?I have to show an ID to any policeman that asks, to get a prescription,see the doctor, get my blood drawn, board an air plane, get my taxes done, write a check, accept a job, withdraw money at the bank and sometimes when I use a...
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
Should Trump have ordered major investigation into voter fraud of him not winning the popular vote?This is what Trump did with the Birther Movement. He made allegations of Obama not being born in this country and no record of his going to college. He never proved it one way or the...
by American View 8 years ago
Here is a quote from Holder, do you agree? Do you find it interesting that no one can get into the Democratic National Convention if they do not have a picture ID, but you do not need one to vote? “…some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.”-- Attorney...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|