46 minutes of Trump

I just watched our president talk for 46 minutes explaining that he actually won the election and that there was tremendous fraud carried out by the Democrats.

Trump said, “The evidence is overwhelming when you get to see it.” And this is the problem. He claimed that there was ample evidence yet none of the lawsuits brought by Trump lawyers states that there was any fraud. Even Rudy Giuliani stated to the Michigan court that his case was not about voter fraud.

If the evidence is so ‘ample’ why aren’t the Trump lawyers presenting it to the courts? Is it possible that there really is no evidence? This can’t be so because Trump said there was evidence. Trump said that the courts and the media aren’t accepting the evidence because there is a plot to deny him the presidency. How can the courts accept evidence that is not presented in the courtroom?

Trump also said, “They (the democrats) only want to make money.” But who has sent me over a thousand emails asking for donations? The Trump victory fund has made almost $500,000,000 so far. Another quote from Trump on mail in ballots, “No identification of any kind was required.” Then he explains how the signatures on the envelopes did not match in thousands of cases. Was ID required or not? Your signature is a form of ID.

What bothered me the most was when Trump stated that the republican poll watchers were not allowed to observe the vote in Pennsylvania, but when Trump’s lawyer was asked by the judge if there were any republican poll watchers allowed to watch he said there was a ‘non-zero’ number allowed. Really? Why not just tell the judge how many observers there were? Even one means that Trump’s statement was a lie.

— Kevin Bracken, Kelseyville