Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judge rules election fraud in Florida

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judge rules election fraud in Florida

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...y.html?ref=yfp

    Explain this away, lefties.

  • #2
    But Trump won Florida - so are you now suggesting there was voter fraud - Im all for a recount in Florida for 2016

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by daCat View Post
      It's a federal offense and, if convicted, the county supervisor should face prison. But you know that election fraud is different than voter fraud, right?

      Comment


      • #4
        The elections office is required to maintain the ballots in federal elections for 22 months, while Snipes destroyed the ballots after 12 months, which is the retention period for state elections.
        So she destroyed paper ballots 12 months after a primary election between DWS and Tim Canova.

        Is this supposed to mean something?

        Comment


        • #5
          ID requirements would have prevented this tragedy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sctrojan View Post
            But Trump won Florida - so are you now suggesting there was voter fraud - Im all for a recount in Florida for 2016
            Do you ever read anything? This was a primary fraud. Dem on Dem crime. She fixed the national primary, why wouldn't she fix her own?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nash View Post
              ID requirements would have prevented this tragedy.

              Exactly, this clearly would have made the difference between not retaining federal ballots to the full 22 months required and instead only meeting the state required 12. Voter ID doesn’t go far enough!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DPR View Post

                So she destroyed paper ballots 12 months after a primary election between DWS and Tim Canova.

                Is this supposed to mean something?
                1. they destroyed the ballots AFTER a Public records request to see them.
                2. it was enough in number where she might have lost the election if they were allowed to be counted.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The judge ruled that documents were destroyed incorrectly, not that there was actual elections fraud. The liberal spin is “read the same article that you posted”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yep

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ctrl+F for "fraud" produced 0 results.

                      Doesn't stop OP from alleging election fraud in Florida, a sinister view that DWS actually lost and had the ballots destroyed to hide the evidence.

                      What happened to Mr. Wait for all the facts to come out? Or are we just jumping to conclusions again because (D) not (R)?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DPR View Post
                        Ctrl+F for "fraud" produced 0 results.

                        Doesn't stop OP from alleging election fraud in Florida, a sinister view that DWS actually lost and had the ballots destroyed to hide the evidence.

                        What happened to Mr. Wait for all the facts to come out? Or are we just jumping to conclusions again because (D) not (R)?
                        I posted facts numbnuts. The judge ruled on it already.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DynastyFSU2 View Post

                          1. they destroyed the ballots AFTER a Public records request to see them.
                          2. it was enough in number where she might have lost the election if they were allowed to be counted.
                          So it's not voter fraud - it's electioneering fraud. This is after a vote has been legitimately cast.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by daCat View Post

                            I posted facts numbnuts. The judge ruled on it already.
                            Should be easy to point out where the judge called it "election fraud" then.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DPR View Post

                              Should be easy to point out where the judge called it "election fraud" then.
                              Debbie Wasserman Schultz appreciates your support.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X