Mike Lindell Clashes with Bob Sellers on Newsmax

Very disrespectful the way Bob Sellers talked over Mike Lindell the whole time and then got up and left. He said Newsmax accepts the certification of all 50 states and the election.

Aside from Dominion, Pennsylvania is one example of counting of many of the mail in ballots as illegal and legitimate. The time frame on accepting ballots is in accordance with state law and that law can only be changed by that legislature not the state’s executive branch. The law was changed by the state’s executive branch to allow these ballots. To certify the votes of Pennsylvania under these circumstances is a violation of the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the violations Newsmax has accepted the certification and election according to Bob Sellars.

I guess it makes total sense then why no one has raised this issue in court.

It seems like Justice Alito wanted to address it, but the Supreme Court never heard the case.

Excellent. That totally explains why not a single Trump lawyer raised it in a state court.
No once was this raised in court. That’s a fact. What you and you GQP followers have provided is feelings and supposition. Call me when you have evidence or stick with cooler conspiracy theories like the moon landing was faked.

Here is an editorial that provides some much needed context that was strangely omitted in the original post. Specifically:

  • The interview was meant to be about big tech censorship, not debunked election fraud BS. Mark Lindell therefore appeared in bad faith. It would be like if I was invited to a debate about tax reform and I started talking about how The Holocaust was fake. Both hypothetical me and Lindell are the A-holes in this story.
  • Newsmax felt obligated to inform its viewers that the crap Lindell was spewing is not based on any sort of reality or fact.
  • Lindell was banned from Twitter because he violated the TOS, not because he was a conservative. If I defecated in the middle of a bar, the owner is well within their rights to kick me out. Same thing happened here.
  • Everything Right_Wing raised about Pennsylvania wasn’t even discussed in the clip is is completely irrelevent

I wrote aside from Dominion, which is what Mike Lindell discussed, there are issues such as the Pennsylvania ballots which should not be ignored regarding saying the certification should be accepted. Despite these ballots, Seller stated he and Newsmax accept the certification, although the ballots were not discussed in this segment.

By the way, Lindell was asked about his Twitter account at the top of the interview and it sounds like he was relating this to proof about Dominion, like this was at least part of the reason for the suspension. He was answering the question before being talked over.

Also, just because courts have not heard these cases does not mean the allegations don’t at least raise concerns which should be heard. If there was no significant fraud, enough to overturn at least a state and possibly the election, it could easily be put to rest by hearing the cases.

That’s a weasel argument. You’re basically saying disqualify hundreds of thousands of votes because the state of Pennsylvania made the decision to make voting as safe as possible for its citizens during a pandemic

That is your interpretation. Mark Lindell’s previous public appearances and statement are the exact opposite of what you are alleging. Also, you conveniently left out the part where he was dismissive of the ban saying he wanted it to be permanent, indicating that he doesn’t really care about big tech censorship and his only motive was to spew tired debunked election conspiracies. At which point, if Newsmax wants to see itself as a legitimate news outlet, it is obligated to inform its viewers about the facts.

The cases were heard. One very specific case wasn’t heard in the US Federal Supreme Court because it involved State’s Rights and was absolute crap.

Also I would point out that each and every Trump lawyer peddled the same garbage you’re trying to assert on TV. And each and everyone of them back peddled the instant they got the chance to say it in court, where lying has real consequences. I can’t stop you believing what you want, but please stop saying there is evidence because there is none. And no one is stupid enough to try and promote a BS conspiracy theory in court.

As I said previously, let me know when there is something resembling proof.

What part of the state of Pennsylvania made the decision?

Oh, and you talk about weasel arguments? Strawman are weasel arguments.

I agree. Saying that doesn’t prove anything, just so you know.

It’s always “FRAUD” when my side loses