Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, a Trump campaign lawyer, suggested in a Sunday interview that there is still more evidence coming out in President Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud and irregularities.
“We’re getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states,” Powell said, saying that she has enough evidence of election fraud to launch a widespread criminal investigation.
“I don’t make comments without having the evidence to back it up,” she added, saying that elections software switched “millions of votes” from Trump to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
Powell notably provided legal counsel to Gen. Michael Flynn in 2019. She was named to Trump’s legal team in the past several days.
Powell said a whistleblower came forward and said the elections software was designed to “rig elections,” saying that “he saw it happen in other countries,” referring to voting systems Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, or perhaps other software and machines.
“We have so much evidence, I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose,” Powell said, while noting that she won’t reveal the evidence that she has.
“They can stick a thumb drive in the [voting] machine, they can upload software to it even from the Internet … from Germany or Venezuela even,” she said, adding that operations “can watch votes in real-time” and “can shift votes in real-time,” or alleged bad actors can “remote access anything.”
“We’ve identified mathematically the exact algorithm they’ve used—and planned to use from the beginning” that allegedly switched votes to Biden, Powell remarked.
Powell also made reference to a 2019 investigation from Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), as well as other Democratic lawmakers into Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and Hart InterCivic. The senators had expressed concerns about the security of the voting systems.
“(W)e have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry—an integral part of our nation’s democratic process,” wrote the lawmakers in their letters to the firms about a year ago.
“These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.”
Later in the Sunday morning interview, Powell said that her team has “detected voting irregularities that are inexplicable” in states where officials believe they have valid systems.
During the election, Republicans in the House were able to flip at least 11 seats while the GOP is poised to maintain control of the Senate. Some conservatives have questioned how such a voting pattern is possible for Biden to win the presidential election, let alone receive more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history, including President Barack Obama’s victory in 2008.
Originally Posted by Halfcan: :-) Straw Man King looking the other way to massive fraud.
Everyone on this board knows that the same ones crying for 4 years over Trump- would immediately flip if it was Trump admitting beforehand to a voter fraud organization- then installing a network of criminals to commit Federal Crimes.
This election is invalid.
Using a misspoken sentence as evidence of a massive conspiracy? Good grief. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
You have a list of the people mocking the disputes in 2000, 2004, or 2016?
Those didn't even have the compounding factor of covert algorithmic tabulation of massive mail-ins.
You hang your hat on Hillary conceding, a formality that didn't last the night and is still being argued.
You hang your hat on Gore FINALLY conceding, after more than a month and the decision of the SC, even though the argument continued even after a yearlong RE-RE-RE-examination confirmed the initial findings.
Conceding isn't a requirement, so no, I'm not hanging my hat on that at all.
The simple fact is that Trump won states in 2016 by comparable margins and he and his followers didn't yell FRAUD, because it got them what they wanted. If you can't see that this is just poor losing, I can't help you. [Reply]
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Using a misspoken sentence as evidence of a massive conspiracy? Good grief.
Biden didn't "Mis-speak," he told the truth for once and his actions of hiding in the basement through most of the campaign showed that he felt confident it was in the bag. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
You have a list of the people mocking the disputes in 2000, 2004, or 2016?
Those didn't even have the compounding factor of covert algorithmic tabulation of massive mail-ins.
You hang your hat on Hillary conceding, a formality that didn't last the night and is still being argued.
You hang your hat on Gore FINALLY conceding, after more than a month and the decision of the SC, even though the argument continued even after a yearlong RE-RE-RE-examination confirmed the initial findings.
look at babbly making ridiculous comparisons and pretending to think any of this Trump nonsense is legitimate.:-)
Man up, ladyboy! Don't be afraid that your internet friends the Trump nutjobs will frown at you! They are a forgiving, understanding, people and won't mind that you disagreed with them! [Reply]
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
Biden didn't "Mis-speak," he told the truth for once and his actions of hiding in the basement through most of the campaign showed that he felt confident it was in the bag.
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
Biden didn't "Mis-speak," he told the truth for once and his actions of hiding in the basement through most of the campaign showed that he felt confident it was in the bag.
Naturally, you think he was telling the truth the one time it would support your position. The rest of the time, he's lying. Sounds legit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Conceding isn't a requirement, so no, I'm not hanging my hat on that at all.
The simple fact is that Trump won states in 2016 by comparable margins and he and his followers didn't yell FRAUD, because it got them what they wanted. If you can't see that this is just poor losing, I can't help you.
The margins were in the in-person, day-of votes that the remaining set susceptible to fraud could not overturn.
That's the whole point, this election was done differently than any other in history, with a lot of safeguards removed, and the places where the safeguards were most susceptible changed the overall result markedly.
Again, as I've said since the outset, believing it and proving it are two different matters. But nothing is served but your own personal peace of mind by half-assing the proving portion. MoF, it just reinforces the distrust. [Reply]
