Circumstantial.
That’s the key word here, folks, one Seth Ambramson seems to misunderstand.
We looked it up for Seth because we’re nice that way:
Circumstantial: pointing indirectly toward someone’s guilt but not conclusively proving it.
So in other words, it’s all bullsh*t. But look how excited he is about it!
There is COMPELLING circumstantial evidence suggesting votes were changed by Russian hackers and Trump may not have been elected president. The type of evidence discussed here is the same type of probative evidence used in EVERY criminal case. A MUST-READ. https://t.co/xV2enlWHvU
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) July 26, 2018
Compelling bullsh*t.
Well, that changes everything.
2/ Direct evidence: you look out your window and see it raining.
Circumstantial evidence: you come out of your house in the morning and see the grass is soaking wet and say, "This is *some* evidence it rained last night."
Enough evidence of the latter sort and a case is built.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) July 26, 2018
Not exactly, Seth.
But nice try.
3/ Could the kompromat Putin has on Trump be…
…that Trump ISN'T the rightful President of the United States?
It would certainly explain why Trump thinks every mention of Russian hacking delegitimizes his 2016 "win."
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) July 26, 2018
Poor guy, he still thinks that this will magically make Hillary president.
4/ "The only explanation that could possibly explain why Russians didn't change votes in Georgia is to believe an international cabal of hackers got into the system, found instructions, voter registrations, and passwords to voting machines yet decided not to do it—just because."
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) July 26, 2018
So we’re trying to get this straight. Seth is claiming Russians changed votes … in Georgia.
Because you know, Russia has YUGE interest in Georgia.
K.
Oh, well as long as the evidence is circumstantial. https://t.co/S3LRicMQzj
— Dan ?? (@danieltobin) July 27, 2018
*Compelling* and circumstantial, dontcha know.
— Tryx™️? (@Tryxt3rocks) July 27, 2018
It’s only compelling if you WANT TO BELIEVE it as badly as Seth does.
Nonsense. Hack voter registrations, spew propaganda, hack the DNC? You bet. But actually change votes on voting machines, it’s nothing more than theoretically possible. It’s not practical and damn an act of war if found out so why bother when everything else was so successful.
— Richard Bottoms (@rbottoms) July 26, 2018
Because like other progressives, Seth is desperate to believe Trump DIDN’T actually win.
But he did.
Sorry kids.
Hey, let’s just go with paper ballots and Voter ID for everyone from now on? Sound good?
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member