[ttt0]

Sure, "facts" that are irrelevant to the topic.

But if you insist, Matt Braynard managed to raise the money on some other platform and he did found enough potentially illegal votes to swing some states. Mainly people who moved out of state and things like that. So here are your facts.

[nl]

I tried to look into this right now.

He says he's found evidence. All he's posted that I can find is a 42min long video I can't be bothered watching properly, but skipping through it his methodology seems to rely on surveying people now and comparing to voting records. This - of course - isn't "finding potentially illegal votes".

But maybe I missed something. I do think it's interesting that his Twitter profile says he's releasing "data and reports" a week from Nov 24, and there is nothing.

It's also interesting how much of his video is about asking for donations......

[ttt0]

Surveying people was just one thing that he did. He also matched the voters with NCOA database, that could indicate that people from other states voted and things like that.

One of the people they've surveyed was Nahshon Garrett:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTDEIGVoWhI

As much as I'd love to have the actual data myself, I don't think he's going to just post it publicly. He started the project to verify whether the lists of supposedly dead voters that were floating around the web were real. The thing is that people who were posting them were all almost immediately banned for doxxing. So unfortunately, he will only give you the actual data if you're someone trustworthy, so a lawyer, politician, journalist or something like that. His research is included as evidence in some of the ongoing court cases.

From what I've seen a lot of people have said that he might just be a grifter. I personally don't care, since I never donate to anything like that, but if you're considered about this, he posted the expenses on twitter. I believe a lot of money went to the call centers.

And look, it very well might be, that it's literally nothing. But this type of research is realistically as best as you can possibly get. What would confirm whether it's true or not is the state or the feds doing an investigation, but they don't seem to be interested in doing anything. But one way or another, removing his fundraiser was a complete bullshit.

[nl]

> One of the people they've surveyed was Nahshon Garrett

Yeah so here's the affidavit he has signed[1]. There's no evidence at all that he voted in AZ, only that his voter registration record was active, and his affidavit doesn't claim he voted or that he found that he voted, only that Braynard's organisation claims he did.

If you listen carefully to the interview, the story is the same there. When she asks what kind of vote it was he says "oh I don't know - I think it was an early vote or a provisional vote or something". He hasn't checked!

Braynard claims that he voted. But there is nothing verifying that at all that this is the case, and Braynard couldn't verify this independently. (I just checked - you need your Voter ID and/or SSN).

> As much as I'd love to have the actual data myself, I don't think he's going to just post it publicly. He started the project to verify whether the lists of supposedly dead voters that were floating around the web were real. The thing is that people who were posting them were all almost immediately banned for doxxing.

This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't.

One of the reasons everyone is so annoyed about this is because of this shitty grifter wrecking democracy to make a few bucks for themselves.

> What would confirm whether it's true or not is the state or the feds doing an investigation, but they don't seem to be interested in doing anything.

This of course is complete nonsense. There have been vast numbers of state and federal investigations into every alleged piece of fraud. But there is nothing there, especially not on the scale claimed.

> But one way or another, removing his fundraiser was a complete bullshit.

It really wasn't. He was raising money by alleging fraud occurred and he was going to blow the lid on it all.

Carefully trying to work around their restrictions by pretending it was "just in case" - when the President of the United States is making these claims - is clearly bad faith.

[1] https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1...

[ttt0]

That's interesting, thanks for answer.

> This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't.

Well, I saw with my own eyes that people were banned for posting the information like that, so that's why I believe it.

I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea.

Looking on the bright side, I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not.

[nl]

> people were banned for posting the information

No, him using that as an excuse is the BS. If he could actually prove anything - instead of it just being yet more allegations - would be explosive, and being "banned" (by who exactly) wouldn't matter.

> I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea.

Of course, there are plenty of closed court methods of doing this.

> I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not.

Unfortunately this isn't true. It's already 100% clear what is bullshit, but some people keep claiming otherwise, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years at least.

Put it like this: is there anything that would convince you that these claims are all BS? I mean - Trump appointed judges keep throwing the claims out of court. - what more do you need?

[ttt0]

That's just my opinion, but here is what I think:

I already believe that at least 90-95% of those claims are BS, and no one had to convince me to believe anything. However, considering the fact how many people seriously consider Trump to be the next Hitler, there is no doubt in my mind that someone for sure did try to cheat is some way. Another question is whether there was enough of it to change the outcome and to that - I have no idea.

The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots. This fact alone makes the election illegitimate, as far as I am considered. Poll observers should be there to ensure that there is no fraud in the first place, and without that it's really hard to figure out what happened. If the poll observers were allowed to do their job, I don't think I could complain about anything.

Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits. Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet. But I guess it's possible that it's just propaganda from the Trump side, so I have no idea on this one either.

And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ?

[ttt0]

Hold on a second, the affidavit you've linked shows a screenshot (exhibit 2) from a website that says that he voted in AZ. Am I missing something?

[th0ma5]

A lot!

[th0ma5]

[Citation needed]

[ttt0]

I don't care, you moved the goalposts, so research the topic yourself. You can find him @MattBraynard on twitter.

[th0ma5]

LOL if it is legitimate I'll just read about him in the Post instead hah.

[ttt0]

Do whatever you want, but the caveat with that is that according to him, the journalists didn't even bothered to ask him about his actual findings, so don't expect the articles to be unbiased.

[th0ma5]

Just because you and they repeat it doesn't make it true. If he had findings, that is the news, and if no outlet is publishing them, they must not warrant attention.

[ttt0]

Sure, just like Cologne never happened, Paris riots weren't news worthy, BLM protests were fiery but mostly peaceful, etc.