No, the Georgia Voter-Fraud Video Has NOT Been "Debunked"

[Richard-H]

The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not 'Debunked.' Not Even Close

A 'fact' 'checking' outfit claimed to debunk explosive evidence for Republicans' claims of significant election problems in Georgia. It didn't.

thefederalist.com

So question for all of you “de-bonkers”, how exactly has this story been de-bonked?
Seems like that is your (and the media’s) new favorite word to just dismiss anything you don’t agree with.
“Senator, you are being accused of corruption and taking bribes. There is video evidence of your son accepting a brief case that has “bribe money” embroidered on it in big red letters. There are sworn affidavits from the people who handed your son the briefcase. We have the bank records of your son depositing the cash amount into his bank, the same exact amount the witnesses testify that they paid you. Immediately following acceptance of this money, you voted on a bill in which you earmarked a multi-million dollar contract to the company owned by the man handing your son the briefcase. We also have emails in which your son discussed accepting the money, and the subject title of the emails is “meeting to take bribes”, contained in the email your son bitches that he has “to cut the big guy his tribute”. How do you answer these charges?”
“That’s not true. The video was faked, the faked video was stolen by Russians, and I don’t appreciate you picking on my son. This is just a smear”
“Well that does it for me. I believe this story has been completely de-bonked”.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. There is no need to 'debunk' these accusations. Those that make the accusations MUST prove them.

 

[the other mike]

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. There is no need to 'debunk' these accusations. Those that make the accusations MUST prove them.

Do we get 2 years like Mueller did ? ( on $40 million taxpayer dollars)

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Richard-H]

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. There is no need to 'debunk' these accusations. Those that make the accusations MUST prove them.

Do we get 2 years like Mueller did ? ( on $40 million taxpayer dollars)

No, you get until today. Then your shit show is over.

 

[the other mike]

No, you get until today. Then your shit show is over.

 

[BlindBoo]

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. There is no need to 'debunk' these accusations. Those that make the accusations MUST prove them.

Do we get 2 years like Mueller did ? ( on $40 million taxpayer dollars)

Nah, you had BarrGate and DurhamGate investigating the investigation.

I think we need another new investigategate.

My Trumpyberra for the day!

 

[Beef_Supreme]

If the federalist says it is not debunked, then that is unassailable proof that it IS debunked.
Thank you!

EdtheNumbNuts says it’s de-bonked, so it’s de-bonked.

 

[the other mike]

Richard H is gonna go Rainman when it's announced Trump won.

 

[BlindBoo]

Richard H is gonna go Rainman when it's announced Trump won.

Biden won the election of the 50+ elections fair and square.

The only way Trumpybear gets another term is if he is appointed.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not 'Debunked.' Not Even Close

A 'fact' 'checking' outfit claimed to debunk explosive evidence for Republicans' claims of significant election problems in Georgia. It didn't.

thefederalist.com

So question for all of you “de-bonkers”, how exactly has this story been de-bonked?
Seems like that is your (and the media’s) new favorite word to just dismiss anything you don’t agree with.
“Senator, you are being accused of corruption and taking bribes. There is video evidence of your son accepting a brief case that has “bribe money” embroidered on it in big red letters. There are sworn affidavits from the people who handed your son the briefcase. We have the bank records of your son depositing the cash amount into his bank, the same exact amount the witnesses testify that they paid you. Immediately following acceptance of this money, you voted on a bill in which you earmarked a multi-million dollar contract to the company owned by the man handing your son the briefcase. We also have emails in which your son discussed accepting the money, and the subject title of the emails is “meeting to take bribes”, contained in the email your son bitches that he has “to cut the big guy his tribute”. How do you answer these charges?”
“That’s not true. The video was faked, the faked video was stolen by Russians, and I don’t appreciate you picking on my son. This is just a smear”
“Well that does it for me. I believe this story has been completely de-bonked”.

Deboonked!!!

 

[Mac1958]

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. There is no need to 'debunk' these accusations. Those that make the accusations MUST prove them.

And Republican governors, the Attorney General and Trump-appointed judges have already weighed in.

This is a farce, but the Trumpsters don't realize it. That's not exactly a shock.

 

[the other mike]

The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not 'Debunked.' Not Even Close

A 'fact' 'checking' outfit claimed to debunk explosive evidence for Republicans' claims of significant election problems in Georgia. It didn't.

thefederalist.com

So question for all of you “de-bonkers”, how exactly has this story been de-bonked?
Seems like that is your (and the media’s) new favorite word to just dismiss anything you don’t agree with.
“Senator, you are being accused of corruption and taking bribes. There is video evidence of your son accepting a brief case that has “bribe money” embroidered on it in big red letters. There are sworn affidavits from the people who handed your son the briefcase. We have the bank records of your son depositing the cash amount into his bank, the same exact amount the witnesses testify that they paid you. Immediately following acceptance of this money, you voted on a bill in which you earmarked a multi-million dollar contract to the company owned by the man handing your son the briefcase. We also have emails in which your son discussed accepting the money, and the subject title of the emails is “meeting to take bribes”, contained in the email your son bitches that he has “to cut the big guy his tribute”. How do you answer these charges?”
“That’s not true. The video was faked, the faked video was stolen by Russians, and I don’t appreciate you picking on my son. This is just a smear”
“Well that does it for me. I believe this story has been completely de-bonked”.

Deboonked!!!

View attachment 426670

 

[jillian]

The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not 'Debunked.' Not Even Close

A 'fact' 'checking' outfit claimed to debunk explosive evidence for Republicans' claims of significant election problems in Georgia. It didn't.

thefederalist.com

So question for all of you “de-bonkers”, how exactly has this story been de-bonked?
Seems like that is your (and the media’s) new favorite word to just dismiss anything you don’t agree with.
“Senator, you are being accused of corruption and taking bribes. There is video evidence of your son accepting a brief case that has “bribe money” embroidered on it in big red letters. There are sworn affidavits from the people who handed your son the briefcase. We have the bank records of your son depositing the cash amount into his bank, the same exact amount the witnesses testify that they paid you. Immediately following acceptance of this money, you voted on a bill in which you earmarked a multi-million dollar contract to the company owned by the man handing your son the briefcase. We also have emails in which your son discussed accepting the money, and the subject title of the emails is “meeting to take bribes”, contained in the email your son bitches that he has “to cut the big guy his tribute”. How do you answer these charges?”
“That’s not true. The video was faked, the faked video was stolen by Russians, and I don’t appreciate you picking on my son. This is just a smear”
“Well that does it for me. I believe this story has been completely de-bonked”.

You f-ing lost

 

[Beef_Supreme]

The Georgia Vote-Counting Video Was Not 'Debunked.' Not Even Close

A 'fact' 'checking' outfit claimed to debunk explosive evidence for Republicans' claims of significant election problems in Georgia. It didn't.

thefederalist.com

So question for all of you “de-bonkers”, how exactly has this story been de-bonked?
Seems like that is your (and the media’s) new favorite word to just dismiss anything you don’t agree with.
“Senator, you are being accused of corruption and taking bribes. There is video evidence of your son accepting a brief case that has “bribe money” embroidered on it in big red letters. There are sworn affidavits from the people who handed your son the briefcase. We have the bank records of your son depositing the cash amount into his bank, the same exact amount the witnesses testify that they paid you. Immediately following acceptance of this money, you voted on a bill in which you earmarked a multi-million dollar contract to the company owned by the man handing your son the briefcase. We also have emails in which your son discussed accepting the money, and the subject title of the emails is “meeting to take bribes”, contained in the email your son bitches that he has “to cut the big guy his tribute”. How do you answer these charges?”
“That’s not true. The video was faked, the faked video was stolen by Russians, and I don’t appreciate you picking on my son. This is just a smear”
“Well that does it for me. I believe this story has been completely de-bonked”.

You f-ing lost

Damn. That was a compelling argument. All the reports of vote switching occuring, the videos of people telling the observers and press counting is done and sending observers home, and then pulling ballots from under a table and running them through the machine.... destroyed by your thoughtful position.

 

[edthecynic]

If the federalist says it is not debunked, then that is unassailable proof that it IS debunked.
Thank you!

You don't accept proof. What you do accept is likely to be found in the national enquirer, etc..

Hey dumbass, that photo is NOT the National Enquirer, but you are too STUPID to know the difference and too LAZY to care. In any case the National Enquirer and Weekly World News are infinitely more credible than the Federalist!!!!
Here is the "source" of the Federalists' LIOES:

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor.
Gee Hillsdale College and FAUX gossip, two really unbiased sources. NOT!

 

[edthecynic]

If the federalist says it is not debunked, then that is unassailable proof that it IS debunked.
Thank you!

EdtheNumbNuts says it’s de-bonked, so it’s de-bonked.

I gave you unassailable proof, why do you hate FACTS?????

 

[the other mike]

You f-ing lost

 

[the other mike]

I gave you unassailable proof, why do you hate FACTS?????

It should be;
I gave you unassailable proof. Why do you hate FACTS?????
Not all one sentence unless you say;
I gave you unassailable proof, so why do you hate FACTS?????
Got it ?

 

[BluesLegend]

Why were thousands of ballots hidden under a table hmmm?

 

[Beef_Supreme]

If the federalist says it is not debunked, then that is unassailable proof that it IS debunked.
Thank you!

EdtheNumbNuts says it’s de-bonked, so it’s de-bonked.

I gave you unassailable proof, why do you hate FACTS?????

You gave me proof?
Where?