Lol I love how you believe typing 'fact check' in bold and the presenting an opinion piece article is your way of dismissing this evidence. Stick to the narrative no matter what, hey bud? I did want to see what mental gymnastics would be used to discredit this video and I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure.
First I dint type fact check in bold I literally copied the articles headline, and the forum auto formated.
Second, if you want to play the vicious being, that would rather post videos, when they are entirely lacking of context, when f*cking nefarious sources known for peddling unfounded conspiracy theories in the past do it - URGING every moron to 'look for themselves' and interpreting 'what that might be there on their own' (post in the comments, like and subscribe) -- literally stopping at 'blonde women' as a descriptor for who is in that video, then get out.
"Blonde women told everyone to go home, that there would be no counting." SAYS WHO? THERE IS NO AUDIO ON THE VIDEO. BLOND WOMEN WORKED THERE, WHY ARE YOU PUTTING IT OUT THERE BEFORE EVEN KNOWING HER NAME? WHY ARENT WE GETTING QUOTES FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THEIR FUNCTION (if you try to protect their personality rights) - WHY IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE TELLING PEOPL "this is a smoking gun" - AT THE SAME TIME IT IS TELLING THEM IT HAS NO IDEA WHAT EXACTLY IS HAPPENING ON THE VIDEO, YOU _HAVE TO_ WATCH IT YOURSELF.
Could it be that the source plays you - and tries to get you to participate in a game of wasting your time, at the end of which you simply _cant_ allow anyone to tell you that you wasted your time? Its called farming user engagement. The best evangelists for any story are born that way.
The fact check site AT LEAST HAD THE ACUMEN, to call up the voting officials in that county, and speak with the people in that room on what their positions where, and what happened from their perspectives, not just promoting a silent CCTV video with no context - spinning out the potential actions of 'nafarious blonde women'.
F*ck you for falling for that shit on that level (the were literally no names attached to the video, there was literally the phrase 'smoking gun > but not sure whats, there > what do you see in that video' attached. And f*ck you three times over for sharing that shit.
Journalism starts with doing background checks on material you've gotten. If you just want to share a video and the conspiratorial story thats attached to it on social media. Stay on social media.
Also how dare you to try to remedy all of this with a personal attack.
Thats the issue here - you have literally a deranged legal team pulling up all kinds of nonsense at this point, getting beat down in almost every case in court - AND SOMEHOW you manage to pull up even worse conspiratoral stuff, thats not even passing the 'first attempt to vet this test'. Thats entirely out there only to trap functional idiots. That never gets a second of court time, because of obvious reasons - and you are willing to bet your reputation as a 'sharer' of online information on 'blonde women wheeled in suitcases', what do you think?
Hey - if you are not seven years old, please consider what you are doing, the entire atmosphere currently is insane enough.
(As in normally you expect those kind of reputation attacks from foreign actors, not from the president of your country.)
Also read the article, not just the headline - there is a timeline attached to the video of who shared it first, and what they said to get people riled up over it.
They also spoke with the official election monitors.
The F*CKING agitprop meme spreading channels didnt.
And you 'very special person' stoped at the headline and accused me of writing factcheck, and then threw a tantrum.
In the current climate - why WHY is nobody thats so concerned about the content in this video, they are not absolutely certain on, just suing the voting commision in that county?
Answer:
Because there is a difference between 'the court of facebook' and a 'criminal court' as in - facebook only lives to be driven into a conclusion using contexture and emotion. What really happened really is just in the way at this point.
You want to see this as a proof of something - you dont care what the people in the video actually said, or did, you unload on the person actually providing you that context - BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT BE WRONG.
"Do you think if you just put factcheck and then..." Then read, the effing factcheck. Read whats in there. Read what the people actually said. Read what gutterpunk first manufactured this to be something it ultimately turned out not to be. READ.
edit:
Also first you release that 'Information' to the public, and then you say you will file a lawsuit?
But at the second hearing of the day the attorneys for President Trump said that they intended to file a lawsuit in Fulton County to change the election results.
The attorneys said they had evidence “that tens of thousands of ineligible voters cast ballots in the election. And they called on the General Assembly to send a slate of electors to Washington who would elect Trump as president,” The AJC said.
https://usaherald.com/breaking-georgia-governor-kemp-calls-signature-audit-election/
What exactly are you doing here?
You delay, you spray effing vitreol, you let the public decide first, and courts later? You dont follow up on who is in the video and what they said, you release it via conspiracy peddlers - and then what? Hope for the best in court?
edit2:
Another far right news source at least got the names of the actors, and the first reactions of the political pundits.
https://www.ntd.com/georgia-state-f...ulling-out-suitcases-with-ballots_535817.html
The fact check website still got more.
edit3: Election official reaction (different news source):
A video
Donald Trump’s campaign alleged was “smoking gun” evidence that secret “suitcases” of ballots went counted without observers, has been dismissed by
Republican election officials.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ia-suitcase-video-ballots-trump-b1766363.html