Posted on Dec 4, 2020
25 former D.C. Bar presidents can be wrong
1.52K
61
11
13
13
0
Edited 4 y ago
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 6
Thank you my friend MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. for posting the link to powerlineblog.com. Certainly twenty-five DC bars/saloons, etc. presidents can certainly be wrong .
Some people have no sense of humor, it seems.
Owners/corporate president of bars and saloons can certainly be right or wrong :-)
FYI SSG Franklin Briant SFC Chuck Martinez SGT Mark Anderson SGT Jim Arnold Maj Robert Thornton PO2 Frederick Dunn SMSgt David A Asbury MSgt David Hoffman MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi
Some people have no sense of humor, it seems.
Owners/corporate president of bars and saloons can certainly be right or wrong :-)
FYI SSG Franklin Briant SFC Chuck Martinez SGT Mark Anderson SGT Jim Arnold Maj Robert Thornton PO2 Frederick Dunn SMSgt David A Asbury MSgt David Hoffman MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi
(7)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
I wrote twenty-five DC bars/saloons presidents can certainly be wrong Capt Gregory Prickett PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Owners/corporate president of bars and saloons can certainly be right or wrong :-)
Owners/corporate president of bars and saloons can certainly be right or wrong :-)
(0)
(0)
Here, it is important to distinguish between proof of significant amounts of fraud and proof of fraud sufficient to have tipped the election from Trump to Biden (as well as between claims that don’t succeed and claims that are frivolous). I agree with Attorney General Barr (and with Andy McCarthy) that Trump’s lawyers are extremely unlikely to make a convincing case of fraud that altered the outcome of the election. (In Michigan, for example, Trump fell around 150,000 votes in the tabulation. In Pennsylvania, he came up around 80,000 votes short.)
But this doesn’t mean they won’t be able to present substantial evidence of an alarming amount of fraud, or even fraud that altered the outcome in a particular state.
If they think they can, they should. Voter fraud is anti-democratic whether it determines outcomes or not.
-------------------------------------------------------
Voter fraud undermines belief in the system and encourages behavior we do not want! This needs to be out in the open
But this doesn’t mean they won’t be able to present substantial evidence of an alarming amount of fraud, or even fraud that altered the outcome in a particular state.
If they think they can, they should. Voter fraud is anti-democratic whether it determines outcomes or not.
-------------------------------------------------------
Voter fraud undermines belief in the system and encourages behavior we do not want! This needs to be out in the open
(4)
(0)
Read This Next