Thread by @mhbx

@tommy_pane Not sure what the problem is. It is on YouTube.

Watched it looking for data/facts. Lots of asssertions. Lots of sneaky insinuations, but little in the nature of facts.
Still, that is not enough to discard it out of hand.
But I wonder why this is the only venue where this info

@tommy_pane 2/ is being gathered and presented?
You'll say the MSM is shutting them down.
This is not supported or supportable by the evidence. Even the basic fact I found it on Youtube, despite all your paranoia.

@tommy_pane 3/ If this were compelling, irrefutable set of facts it is curious why the only outlet for these things is this video. And likely similar low visibility, high paranoid sites....

1. This should have been part of a strong court case. But none of this was ever presented.

@tommy_pane 4/ You'll retort they were shut down and not allowed.
- not likely.
but even if they were, why did not the national voices like Rudy and Sidney Powell, who said they had overwhelming proof - presumably this stuff, or something like it -
They never once said what it was.

@tommy_pane 5/ In the end they retracted all lawsuits that had not been thrown out without a peep.

That seems a difficult chasm to cross.

You know if Trump had this information and could prove it, not in the summary assertion, proposition, but with facts and proof that could stand up

@tommy_pane 6/ under any sort of scrutiny, he would have heralded it out loud relentlessly. He did as much with far lesser "proofs" and far more porous "facts".

2. There is no source reference footnotes.
As such there is nothing that can be verified.

I could go on.
Basically this comes

@tommy_pane 7/ across at first glance like a real smoking gun. On the slightest of reflection it engenders far more questions than it actually provides answers.

It seems akin to 'theories' like the Flat Earth. If you are predisposed to believe it, or if you only allow a limited amount of

@tommy_pane 8/ ideas and details to be considered you can make a compelling case. Expand the POV, poke at the assumptions and it does not stand up so well.

I cannot say categorically that the assertions made are not true. It is unclear how they are true? And what else is true that is not

@tommy_pane 9/ being told?
Some of the more breathless things, like people working after hours, Oh My, (on video tape no less) don't hold up.

Some of the points I recall have been roundly debunked as well.

Specifically the multiple scans of voting blocks.
The recounts against paper

@tommy_pane 10/ paper records pretty much have dismantled that point.

My suspicion is any hard look at the central points would find similar cracks in the logic.

Mostly the knock out punch for me is that the information was not even held by Rudy et al. And they were making some absurd

@tommy_pane 11/ statements that make any of these seem like eternal veritas.

So. No. It is not compelling.

If this is your strongest argument, it simply confirms the sharp point of my disagreement with you.

I'll leave it there. I'll just say IBID.

@tommy_pane 12/ PS.
The quantity of details you have to ignore &/or assume, for this "flat earth" like proposition to hold together is immense. The poll & count watchers. The recounts.The depth of conspiracy & the nbr of people that wld have had to be in on it" is too much.
And unbelievable

@tommy_pane @buzz_chronicles save