2 ms·
Honest question: How do you interpret the undercover video of Scott Foval as not indicative of election fraud? He explicitly confesses to violating federal ele
by alphapapa 10y ago
Honest question: How do you interpret the undercover video of Scott Foval as not indicative of election fraud? He explicitly confesses to violating federal election law.
Is he not actually Scott Foval?
Is he lying to the person he's talking to?
Or are you saying that, while he is telling the truth and has committed those acts, they didn't amount to enough to make a difference? If so, how do you know that, based on what he said? Why do you think they would spend time and money on those things, and risk prosecution, if they didn't think it could make a difference? Why do you think that there aren't people like him doing the same thing in other places?
Looking at the video of him, it is clear that election fraud is happening. The question is to what extent.
Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face.
- myko 10y agoO'Keefe is widely known for editing videos to create false narratives (see: the ACORN debacle). I don't really trust anything he puts out at this point. > Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face. Not true. It is true that people have casted absentee/early ballots and then died. It's also true that people with the same name as someone who has died has voted. When these examples come up they typically fall into those categories.