"You can't give it to an autopen. And you can always tell an autopen. One thing, it has two little tiny dots. You know that? Two little dots. Do you know what that's from? Two pins. They go bing, pow, bong, pow. They're wonderful things. But you've got to sign it, and the law is you have to sign. If somebody's telling The autopen person, he has to be authorized by the president of the United States. Well, he wasn't,"
"First of all, the election was rigged. You want to have voter ID. You want to insist on it. You want to insist on it, can you imagine, in California, they not only don't have voter ID, but if an official at the voting boothswhich they don't, by the way, because it's all mailif an officer, a voting official, even asks somebody for voter ID."
"And I think it's what, 95% of the things were signed by autopen. You can tell because the autopen is a nice plain signature and his signature is a mess. The only thing he signed, which is nice, was Hunter's pardon. No, that's the only thing that we could find that he signed. Most of it he didn't sign. So somebody's sending papers to sign, and he wasn't the president."
The 2020 presidential election was characterized as rigged and stolen, and allegations emphasized alleged widespread voter fraud tied to the January 6 attack. Detailed assertions claimed extensive use of an autopen for presidential signatures, describing telltale "two little tiny dots" and estimating about 95% of documents were autopen-signed. An autopen authorization requirement was contested, and specific claims questioned whether the purported signer knew the president. The absence of voter ID in places such as California and the predominance of mail voting were presented as vulnerabilities. Pardons and the singular signing of Hunter's pardon were cited as exceptions to the autopen pattern.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]