Infidel Dog

What evidence? Still waiting. You've got a whole sympathetic TDS committee and a swamp DOJ and nothing's changed. A lot unverified allegations.

I bet Liban Mohammed doesn't collect illegal ballots anymore though. So Project Veritas at least accomplished that. Doesn't mean his cousins and uncles haven't picked up the slack though.

First the obvious... Your big smear is O'Keefe uses selected editing. Check out your video again. Tell me they're not doing that. Next one is, nice suit, Liban. You've cleaned yourself up since your last appearance on video. So you were ready for this appearance then. And now we hear that what we saw on video we didn't actually see. This for instance: Apparently that was just Liban making general comments about politics. Also that report on Fox 9 lies. It says Minnesota allowed collecting multiple ballots for a brief period. That's a lie. Other "news" sources you would rely on have been forced to retract that lie. https://www.projectveritas.com/video/retraction-323-newsweeks-darragh-roche-corrects-fact-that-ballot-harvesting/ https://www.projectveritas.com/news/james-okeefe-demands-new-york-times-retract-hit-piece-on-veritas-minnesota/ So a provable lawbreaker tells us he didn't break the law. And this is your superior evidence is it?

You'd save me some time if you read the links you were given. To much to hope for, I guess. Here ya go then...from the previous cite: " Engelbrecht noted that the criteria they used to identify a person as a ballot trafficker was intended to rule out individuals who might merely have been passing by. The person not only had to have made multiple trips to multiple drop boxes, he or she also had to have made at least five visits to one or more of the non-profit, left-wing organizations that turned out to be a nexus of ballot traffic. In Atlanta, the researchers identified 242 people who went to an average of 24 drop boxes and eight organizations during a two-week period. "We want to absolutely ensure that we don't have false positives, meaning including people that should not have been included," said Phillips. "We're not in any way saying that this is all there is."

Really? Because you say so, I guess or because somebody told you so? Hey, it would be real easy for you to go from being just another irresponsible slur merchant to an evidence based critic worthy of respect. Address the actual claim that was made in the video originally mentioned. Give us some evidence showing us why we can't believe the guy on that video is claiming to be Ilhan Omar's cousin and he acquires ballots through seedy even illegal methods. Or is the sum total of your evidence the fact you think James O'Keefe is a big fat poopy head? Is that what you seem to be suggesting makes you an expert on why we can't believe our lying eyes?

" In a 2018 opinion in the Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that when the government "tracks the location of a cell phone," it "achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user." And Engelbrecht points out in the movie that the data in Georgia was used by law enforcement as a test case to help law enforcement solve a cold murder case of a young girl." https://dailyangle.com/articles/2000-mules-true-the-vote-respond-to-ap-fact-check The technology was also used to identify many of defendants charged January 6. So are you saying you want to let all those go free now because the technology can't be trusted? Bet you're not.

Unfounded claims just make you sound like one of those nuts who rely on them. They also allow you to divert from the actual claim. There was a video and on that video a guy was claiming how he bought or bullyragged ballots from the weaker elements of his immigrant community. Show me why we can't believe that without relying only on general smear and slur of the guys offering the evidence. Can't do it, can you? So really all you've got is some bad mouthing of an organization your progressive propagandizers don't like. I'll bet you think you've impressed someone. You haven't.

Just because you say so or because you've learned another term you'd like to mismanage the definition of? I'll answer that one for you too. It's both. As to the rest of your nonsense it's unsupported puffed up gobbledygook. Leftist rant and spew supported by nothing.

As to O'Keefe I've heard all the smears and slurs of him embedded into the accepted Prog narrative. They can almost always be answered. For example whole unedited videos from Project Veritas is usually available at his site. Or at least it was the last time I checked. He may have stopped bothering but editing content is something every mainstream clip you've ever seen does. They never offer the full unedited version though. There's one critique of O'Keefe you guys never want to mention but it's the only one that really matters. He catches your lords and masters at their dirty deeds. All the time.

See, that's the problem with only considering one politically charged, almost religiously dogmatized accepted narrative. You don't actually know what the critique of Wikipedia is and your indoctrination will not allow you to open up to finding out. I'm going to help you anyway. The problem with Wikipedia is editors who how know how to manipulate a system and have the time and will to do it can monopolize that system to the point any information that casts any kind of shade on the accepted narrative is kept out. These editors are pretty much all hard left Progs. This information is all over the internet if you were allowed to notice by your lords and masters. It's not a secret.

Also, not that it matters but you do know you grabbed the wrong quote, don't you? I had to work on that one to figure out where you were coming from.

Or so the Prog-Comm spin machine like Wikpedia would have you believe. Anybody can smear and slur though and you're doing more of it than O'Keefe ever did. Love the way you posture and puff to bluster us into believing you've proven some sort of point though. Message from Prog, "You've learned well, little Padawan." Or did you learn that from Wikipedia? Would you like some quotes on what some folks think about Wikipedia? Anyone can smear and slur and pull selected spun facts out their butts. Too bad they don't tell you that on Wikipedia. Some us understand why they don't. Farts in a crowded elevator syndrome.

BTW...

Until you stop lying I suppose. This is what Trump told the crowd at his January 6, Washington rally. "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." And what about that authorizes you to pretend it affects what we were actually talking about. There was a twitter poll. Over half said they wanted Trump back. What is democratic about rejecting that majority? What is democratic about censoring voices that disagree? By the definition of democracy as "it's always been," I mean. I'll answer that for you. Nothing. You and yours are trying to hijack the meaning of another word to suit your mood. It's about the feels. If the feels want to say, "It's about muh democracy" then that's supposed to be good enough. And when it's challenged you'll go "Oh yeah?! Well, muh January 6th," and think you've proved something. You've proved your usual nothing.

They're upset. They tell us Trump getting his account back is another one of those things that threaten democracy. Apparently the old days of censorship and disregarding polls that didn't find what they wanted them to were so much more "Democratic." Seriously...can anybody tell me what this new "Progressive" definition of Democracy is?

And in the new Twitter even those who disagree have a voice:

That is an interesting site. Would you like me to show you how to do a search on it? There are twice as many incidents of Democrats cheating as there are Republicans.

No, it hasn't. The debunkers have been debunked. Too bad you're so out of touch. That's another on you should already know.

Good one. They didn't deserve anything like a ban. Maybe a metal.

Actually you should already know about James O Keefe and his Project Veritas. That you don't tells me you're out of touch. But yeah, you're progressive socialists guys don't like them so they call them names. I say all you can do with that is return the favour. But here's the problem with being out of touch. You say naive things. Only one incident? What? Are you joking. Shall we start with 2000 Mules for examples of others? One incident at a time maybe, but only one incident? Catch up.

No. They're not saying "cheat." They're saying your guys changed the rules now they have to adapt by getting better at ballot harvesting than the Prog-Comms. Cheating is possible too. Imagine some on the right will try to beat the Progs at that as well.

Babylon Bee?

I told where I'd look for it. That's good enough. But what's more interesting is what I've been hearing at multiple sites of the right lately. Basically, you can't win against ballot harvesting so it becomes an "if you can't beat them join them" situation. There's a push from some Republicans to start getting good at it themselves - setting up ballot boxes in Republican areas and ballot harvesting by Republicans and such like that. I suspect some will even go to the dirtier side of the ballot harvesting. The Minneapolis or 2000 Mules version. When that happens though what we'll be hearing from you guys is it was Republicans doing it all along, of course. Which will be a lie, of course. Oh what the Hell, Di...we both know you're not going to look it up. I'm not even sure you know how, so here ya go... https://www.projectveritas.com/news/ilhan-omar-connected-cash-for-ballots-voter-fraud-scheme-corrupts-elections/ The correct response is Thank You.

No doubt, but back in reality best guess is he'd return to Twitter.

But would you really want that? Truth Social to fail, I mean. Because if it does where does The Donald go?