1/18
Here’s my fact check on EVERY one of Trump/MAGA claims regarding Fulton:
1) “Trump has the power to seize paper ballots”
No.
State infrastructure and vote archives have specific protections (see Miles’ post below). Paper ballots are supposed to be the untouched records we compare against.
Taking them means any evidence he would have is now tainted.
It is also likely a criminal act.
Here’s my fact check on EVERY one of Trump/MAGA claims regarding Fulton:
1) “Trump has the power to seize paper ballots”
No.
State infrastructure and vote archives have specific protections (see Miles’ post below). Paper ballots are supposed to be the untouched records we compare against.
Taking them means any evidence he would have is now tainted.
It is also likely a criminal act.
https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2016880217038451045
2/18
2) “Trump has proof the election was stolen!”
No.
In fact, we have:
* His voice recorded on the phone telling Kemp to “find” him 11,000 votes because he lost.
* Him in multiple conversations with other Republicans admitting he lost (cited in Jack Smith case)
* Him in conversations with other Republicans admitting he knew there was no issue with the voting machines (Jack Smith case)
* Him in writing planning a plot to seize voting machines preemptively, before he claimed any issue. (Barr step down)
* His own lawyers in their election fraud cases, admitting on sworn record, that there was no evidence.
2) “Trump has proof the election was stolen!”
No.
In fact, we have:
* His voice recorded on the phone telling Kemp to “find” him 11,000 votes because he lost.
* Him in multiple conversations with other Republicans admitting he lost (cited in Jack Smith case)
* Him in conversations with other Republicans admitting he knew there was no issue with the voting machines (Jack Smith case)
* Him in writing planning a plot to seize voting machines preemptively, before he claimed any issue. (Barr step down)
* His own lawyers in their election fraud cases, admitting on sworn record, that there was no evidence.
3/18
3) “Trump wasn’t fairly heard in his cases”
No.
MAGA claims all cases were dismissed solely on standing, but that’s not true.
Even when he lacked standing courts often still reviewed the merits of the case.
They didn’t have any.
3) “Trump wasn’t fairly heard in his cases”
No.
MAGA claims all cases were dismissed solely on standing, but that’s not true.
Even when he lacked standing courts often still reviewed the merits of the case.
They didn’t have any.
4/18
4) “Trump’s cases had real evidence of fraud that wasn’t heard!”
No.
Most of his **63** cases didn’t even claim fraud. They claimed process disputes.
Some of the only ones that came close to complaining about fraud actually only claimed:
* Machines malfunctioned
Or
* Election workers were bias against signatures
Ones that claimed fraud were reviewed and in cases like Law v Whitmer the courts said Trumps team failed to prove any evidence of malfunction or malfeasance.
4) “Trump’s cases had real evidence of fraud that wasn’t heard!”
No.
Most of his **63** cases didn’t even claim fraud. They claimed process disputes.
Some of the only ones that came close to complaining about fraud actually only claimed:
* Machines malfunctioned
Or
* Election workers were bias against signatures
Ones that claimed fraud were reviewed and in cases like Law v Whitmer the courts said Trumps team failed to prove any evidence of malfunction or malfeasance.
5/18
5) “Trump has proof of a case in Georgia!”
No.
His own lawyer who was in charge of the Georgia case (Sidney Powell) literally pled guilty to election racketeering.
She admitted in her sworn statement there was no evidence.
5) “Trump has proof of a case in Georgia!”
No.
His own lawyer who was in charge of the Georgia case (Sidney Powell) literally pled guilty to election racketeering.
She admitted in her sworn statement there was no evidence.
6/18
6) “The 63 judges are bias.”
No / you’re an idiot.
63 different judges found no merit to ANY of Trump’s cases.
Many of these judges included Republicans, including Trump judges.
6) “The 63 judges are bias.”
No / you’re an idiot.
63 different judges found no merit to ANY of Trump’s cases.
Many of these judges included Republicans, including Trump judges.
7/18
7) “Getting a warrant now proves the judges were wrong”
No.
A) It is a different case.
B) The bar to get a warrant is lower than a case itself.
C) Finding one bias judge to sign off on a warrant is a lot easier than thinking there are 63 bias judges.
7) “Getting a warrant now proves the judges were wrong”
No.
A) It is a different case.
B) The bar to get a warrant is lower than a case itself.
C) Finding one bias judge to sign off on a warrant is a lot easier than thinking there are 63 bias judges.
8/18
8) “DNI Gabbard being involved shows how serious this is!”
No.
Gabbards position has no legal authority to be involved here and is actually a red flag.
Her jurisdiction is over foreign intelligence matters interfering with the US not domestic ones - and she has a requirement to provide sealed notice to relevant Congressional committees prior to major operations. She did not.
Lastly, Gabbard is the most likely suspect to be a foreign asset.
She has been a person of interest in such investigations going all the way back to her time in local government in Hawaii.
This is so well known that even Marco Rubio has frozen her out of all major international policy that the DNI would normally be involved with.
8) “DNI Gabbard being involved shows how serious this is!”
No.
Gabbards position has no legal authority to be involved here and is actually a red flag.
Her jurisdiction is over foreign intelligence matters interfering with the US not domestic ones - and she has a requirement to provide sealed notice to relevant Congressional committees prior to major operations. She did not.
Lastly, Gabbard is the most likely suspect to be a foreign asset.
She has been a person of interest in such investigations going all the way back to her time in local government in Hawaii.
This is so well known that even Marco Rubio has frozen her out of all major international policy that the DNI would normally be involved with.
9/18
9) “The new Supreme Court case gives Trump automatic standing to force these cases to be heard!”
No.
The Supreme Court case (Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections) does two things:
1) Deems that disputes related to the *postmark date* of mail-in ballots, sufficiently count as standing by themselves. (Applies on elections moving forward)
2) Candidates (moving forward) have the right to sue a state over laws changing the postmark acceptance dates - but it gives no decision on what IS acceptable. Only the right to be heard in case.
This:
* Does NOT change prior postmark rules or disputes.
* It does NOT give standing to old cases.
* It does NOT give automatic standing to cases that aren’t about the postmarks.
* It does NOT apply to any of the 63 claims Trump made, because none of those were postmark disputes.
* It does NOT apply to the Fulton case, where Trump claimed voting machine issues.
9) “The new Supreme Court case gives Trump automatic standing to force these cases to be heard!”
No.
The Supreme Court case (Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections) does two things:
1) Deems that disputes related to the *postmark date* of mail-in ballots, sufficiently count as standing by themselves. (Applies on elections moving forward)
2) Candidates (moving forward) have the right to sue a state over laws changing the postmark acceptance dates - but it gives no decision on what IS acceptable. Only the right to be heard in case.
This:
* Does NOT change prior postmark rules or disputes.
* It does NOT give standing to old cases.
* It does NOT give automatic standing to cases that aren’t about the postmarks.
* It does NOT apply to any of the 63 claims Trump made, because none of those were postmark disputes.
* It does NOT apply to the Fulton case, where Trump claimed voting machine issues.
10/18
10) “The new Supreme Court case lets them seize the ballots”
It does not.
Trump’s claim about Georgia in 2020 also had nothing to do with mail in ballots.
Sidney Powell claimed a voting machine conspiracy - she admitted in court to it being fraudulent.
10) “The new Supreme Court case lets them seize the ballots”
It does not.
Trump’s claim about Georgia in 2020 also had nothing to do with mail in ballots.
Sidney Powell claimed a voting machine conspiracy - she admitted in court to it being fraudulent.
11/18
11) “Now Trump will have the evidence to prove his case!”
No.
He will say he has that evidence.
But because he took the roles, tabulators and archive ballots all at once, the evidence is spoiled.
11) “Now Trump will have the evidence to prove his case!”
No.
He will say he has that evidence.
But because he took the roles, tabulators and archive ballots all at once, the evidence is spoiled.
12/18
12) “Trump can use 2020 election fraud to take over elections from the state”
No.
The constitution gives no such authority, even under martial law, voting infrastructure and process is a state matter.
12) “Trump can use 2020 election fraud to take over elections from the state”
No.
The constitution gives no such authority, even under martial law, voting infrastructure and process is a state matter.
13/18
13) “He is raiding Fulton now because of the new Supreme Court Case”
No.
As noted earlier that case doesn’t even apply to his claims in Fulton,
He is doing it now to distract you from Epstein, and the ICE scandal.
And to push for new Congressional voting laws aimed at making it more difficult to vote.
13) “He is raiding Fulton now because of the new Supreme Court Case”
No.
As noted earlier that case doesn’t even apply to his claims in Fulton,
He is doing it now to distract you from Epstein, and the ICE scandal.
And to push for new Congressional voting laws aimed at making it more difficult to vote.
14/18
14) “You’re all shaking in your boots”
No.
But amazing how many anonymous accounts with generic profile pictures all sprung to life to say that exact phrase at once.
And who all (incorrectly) quoted a new SCOTUS case…
(Come on FSB - that’s sloppy!)
14) “You’re all shaking in your boots”
No.
But amazing how many anonymous accounts with generic profile pictures all sprung to life to say that exact phrase at once.
And who all (incorrectly) quoted a new SCOTUS case…
(Come on FSB - that’s sloppy!)
15/18
15) “There has never been an investigation into Fulton!”
There has.
The ballots were also hand counted 3 times by bipartisan oversight.
The voting machines had their certification rechecked and retaliated.
That’s why Dominion won their defamation lawsuit.
15) “There has never been an investigation into Fulton!”
There has.
The ballots were also hand counted 3 times by bipartisan oversight.
The voting machines had their certification rechecked and retaliated.
That’s why Dominion won their defamation lawsuit.
16/18
16) “We all saw votes flip on election night in Fulton!”
Correct.
That’s how batch processing works.
Some districts are heavily Republican, some are heavily Democrat.
Results are not a sequential process. It’s not a race.
It doesn’t matter who is in the lead until all the votes are counted.
Flips happen because a big batch from a district comes in and gets updated.
It doesn’t mean a conspiracy.
Just that you don’t understand stats and graphs.
16) “We all saw votes flip on election night in Fulton!”
Correct.
That’s how batch processing works.
Some districts are heavily Republican, some are heavily Democrat.
Results are not a sequential process. It’s not a race.
It doesn’t matter who is in the lead until all the votes are counted.
Flips happen because a big batch from a district comes in and gets updated.
It doesn’t mean a conspiracy.
Just that you don’t understand stats and graphs.
17/18
17) “People have signed affidavits saying there is fraud”
Yes.
People sign lots of affidavits.
Notably all of these ones are signed by Presidential allies and in federal cases - not state ones.
The President can pardon a federal perjury charge.
None of the affidavits make any evidence claim, or cite specific fraud, they just claim fraud happened or second hand knowledge of fraud without any actual claim.
17) “People have signed affidavits saying there is fraud”
Yes.
People sign lots of affidavits.
Notably all of these ones are signed by Presidential allies and in federal cases - not state ones.
The President can pardon a federal perjury charge.
None of the affidavits make any evidence claim, or cite specific fraud, they just claim fraud happened or second hand knowledge of fraud without any actual claim.
18/18
Trump is using this nonsense to rally his base, distract from ICE murders and Epstein files.
The case:
* Is not impacted by SCOTUS decisions.
* Has been litigated ad nauseam.
* Had his allies confess there was no merit to the claims.
* Has a large coordinated bot response.
* Has tainted evidence that won’t hold up in court.
He just thinks MAGA is dumb enough to focus on this instead of how bad he’s doing.
Trump is using this nonsense to rally his base, distract from ICE murders and Epstein files.
The case:
* Is not impacted by SCOTUS decisions.
* Has been litigated ad nauseam.
* Had his allies confess there was no merit to the claims.
* Has a large coordinated bot response.
* Has tainted evidence that won’t hold up in court.
He just thinks MAGA is dumb enough to focus on this instead of how bad he’s doing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
