User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 9:59:35 AM EDT
[#1]
As a student of history I would point out right before the French revolution and it's Guillotine being employed wholesale there was period of wild ass disinformation and it's lack of trust of all things....
There is a definitive pattern unfolding with the government essentially stating "Who you going to believe me or your lying eyes?".... Real issue now is there is such an appearance of impropriety it does not matter if it happened in the first place. (Georgia really screwed the pooch on this front by using the same suspect machines to recount and not checking validity of absentee ballots). Now its the APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY that is the issue and the natural lack of trust that follows. There is also the curious 180 degree changes in narrative. Up to election day it was "foreign interference" and next morning it was a complete reversal of trust the vote because we say so. Unfortunately history says a couple of things are going to occur very shortly...Violence is now baked into the cake. The division runs to deep, the de-humanizing speech has begun. That always proceeds the violence of one side feeling justified to impose it's will on the other half. What comes next depends on who succeeds during the violent phase. My WAG is that it will be full tyranny or entropy (Balkanization to some degree). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:01:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FFS, you can scan a ballot 100 times, it only counts as one vote. Source: my brother works for the dept of elections. At the polling location I worked at, every time you scanned any ballot, it counted. Since there were no serial numbers on the ballot, the machine has no way of knowing whether this ballot had been scanned or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:02:46 AM EDT
[#3]
Well, the left is out in force today, with yet another example of how poor their memory is and how large a double standard they use.
One lady steps up with a completely unverified story of what happened to her over 25 years ago, and the media and the left demand her - evidence - be looked at as completely legitimate proof/evidence for somehow overturning something. Now, multiple recent witnesses/affidavits are presented, and the left and media are - where is the proof? - please lefties, take a serious look inside and realize how you have been manipulated into completely flip/flopping. The evidence of that manipulation is something no one can deny. Then look at the corruption and fraud and real time evidence/testimony, and realize the truth of what is going on. This is not about Trump, it is about corruption/fraud... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:07:03 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Rescanning batches of ballots MULTIPLE times. Taking advantage of jams / errors when scanning to in order re-run the entire batch MULTIPLE times. Watch it and weep, bitches: https://rumble.com/vbiy7f-dominion-contractor-drops-a-bombshell.html That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:15:46 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A preponderance that something may have happened? Sure. I think many people can see the rather dodgy optics of thousands of ballots suddenly being found in a box, or on a memory stick which just happens to be enough to change the outcome of an electoral count. That requires more than an opinion of people with a vested interest. Unfortunately there is little evidence currently being presented to quantify the scale and extent of this alleged voter fraud, or the means. Nor is there solid evidence to clearly define whether sheer incompetence, systemic failure or deliberate intent of fraud was the cause were it to be accepted that the election was not conducted to an appropriate standard. The bit that really does seem off is that there is clearly a significant number of people questioning the validity of the election results and expressing a loss of faith in the electoral system. That absolutely is a serious matter. It underpins the basis of your democracy. Given that, you would expect all parties and candidates to be very keen to see faith in that system restored with a forensic recount in states or counties where there is sufficient concern or evidence of anomalous results. However it appears such forensic assessments are being resisted. You could argue that the initial preponderance is backed up by a subsequent refusal to substantiate the the voting outcome with a forensic recount of the votes. Grounds for suspicion? Absolutely. But not the smoking gun covered in the DNA of the culprits that you are going to need to get results overturned. To do that I think you have to win a civil case with evidence that would satisfy a test in court sufficient to empirically demonstrate fraud on a scale and extent that either throws the result into serious doubt, leading to a re-count or a re-run of the election, or demonstrates criminal Interference. I think the preponderance you rightly refer to in this case will be held to a much higher standard than many anticipate, given the potential ramifications. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Witnesses and affidavits are very rarely good enough on their own. Anyone can be mistaken, subconsciously fill in the missing pieces to a story they want to make sense of, or even tell a pack of lies and pretend it is true. If you are going to blindly accept affidavits and witness statements as conclusive, without corroborating evidence to back them up, then you are on very shaky ground indeed. Affidavits and witness statements can however be extremely powerful when they confirm or corroborate other evidence. It is the whole picture that tells the story. At this point it is a CIVIL matter which is a preponderance of the evidence standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard). They have easily surpassed preponderance in many people’s opinion. A preponderance that something may have happened? Sure. I think many people can see the rather dodgy optics of thousands of ballots suddenly being found in a box, or on a memory stick which just happens to be enough to change the outcome of an electoral count. That requires more than an opinion of people with a vested interest. Unfortunately there is little evidence currently being presented to quantify the scale and extent of this alleged voter fraud, or the means. Nor is there solid evidence to clearly define whether sheer incompetence, systemic failure or deliberate intent of fraud was the cause were it to be accepted that the election was not conducted to an appropriate standard. The bit that really does seem off is that there is clearly a significant number of people questioning the validity of the election results and expressing a loss of faith in the electoral system. That absolutely is a serious matter. It underpins the basis of your democracy. Given that, you would expect all parties and candidates to be very keen to see faith in that system restored with a forensic recount in states or counties where there is sufficient concern or evidence of anomalous results. However it appears such forensic assessments are being resisted. You could argue that the initial preponderance is backed up by a subsequent refusal to substantiate the the voting outcome with a forensic recount of the votes. Grounds for suspicion? Absolutely. But not the smoking gun covered in the DNA of the culprits that you are going to need to get results overturned. To do that I think you have to win a civil case with evidence that would satisfy a test in court sufficient to empirically demonstrate fraud on a scale and extent that either throws the result into serious doubt, leading to a re-count or a re-run of the election, or demonstrates criminal Interference. I think the preponderance you rightly refer to in this case will be held to a much higher standard than many anticipate, given the potential ramifications. Pretty sure that one could build a case on what has been presented so far. We know via statistical analysis that it is LIKELY that fraud has occurred, not just possible it has occurred. Further, these sworn eyewitness affidavits are corroborated by the fraud indicators. There are also the procedural violations like poll watchers getting the boot. All of this adds up to a preponderance of the evidence. It's the remedy part that gets a little hard to predict. The could, like the PA Supreme Court, simply ignore the law and rule in a flagrantly partisan fashion, in which case it automatically gets appealed. They could order the machines, ballots, envelopes (assuming they haven't already been shredded as we've seen in GA) and do a true audit and forensic examination. Or, they could simple order that the ballots from certain areas are likely the result of fraud and simply toss them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:21:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Find better evidence to compel a forensic recount. What you posted in the OP was a poor quality, non-specific account of things that didn’t seem right. Well meaning as she may be, as far as “PrOoF” or evidence goes it was speculative garbage. That doesn’t give you much to go on. Time, date, individuals present, table no, description of fraudulent actors engaged in an activity with ballots that can be identified either be numerical sequence or signature anomalies, potential electronic or paper records, etc I’ve just seen an account in another thread that gives some potentially good lines of enquiry. ETA. This is potentially far more promising in terms of lines of enquiry:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPVL0UV9KwQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: testimony after testimony that backs each one up. And then the numeric stats that show the impact. what more do you need? The evidence that shows the link between the two. Evidence that could possibly consist of..? A forensic recount showing scale and extent of discrepancies sufficient to call the result into question, for example. In case you missed it, the Georgia GOVERNOR and Secretary of State had every opportunity to do exactly that, but instead chose to recount the same fraudulent ballots. Nothing but a dog and pony show. Please tell me what recourse we have when they outright refuse to do what is being asked? I'll wait... Find better evidence to compel a forensic recount. What you posted in the OP was a poor quality, non-specific account of things that didn’t seem right. Well meaning as she may be, as far as “PrOoF” or evidence goes it was speculative garbage. That doesn’t give you much to go on. Time, date, individuals present, table no, description of fraudulent actors engaged in an activity with ballots that can be identified either be numerical sequence or signature anomalies, potential electronic or paper records, etc I’ve just seen an account in another thread that gives some potentially good lines of enquiry. ETA. This is potentially far more promising in terms of lines of enquiry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPVL0UV9KwNo, you don't understand. They HAD the appropriate level of evidence and the SoS refused to do his damn job. Same with the GA Governor. So, now a Federal judge has ordered the voting machines to be secured (which they ignored) and a forensic investigation to be conducted including, hopefully, an audit of a select sampling of precincts to look for signature matches, bogus addresses, dead people voting, out of state votes, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:22:25 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rescanning batches of ballots MULTIPLE times. Taking advantage of jams / errors when scanning to in order re-run the entire batch MULTIPLE times. Watch it and weep, bitches: https://rumble.com/vbiy7f-dominion-contractor-drops-a-bombshell.html That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. Wrong. Good luck with that approach, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:23:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Eyewitnesses ALONE are useless evidence, that's why all their cases have been laughed out of court I had high hopes too right after the election, but after their first cases where they only had affidavits I knew it was over And another one that doesn't understand the concept of evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:23:31 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They actually aren’t good enough for anything. Witnesses and testimony help COO-BERATE evidence. Accusations aren’t evidence...and I hope to god they never are in America. Its obvious you guys have ran out the ARFCOM lawyers from these threads. Bullshit. lol its not bullshit. with your line of thinking, Justice Cavanaugh is a rapist....according to eyewitness testimony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:31:54 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. Good luck with that approach, though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rescanning batches of ballots MULTIPLE times. Taking advantage of jams / errors when scanning to in order re-run the entire batch MULTIPLE times. Watch it and weep, bitches: https://rumble.com/vbiy7f-dominion-contractor-drops-a-bombshell.html That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. Wrong. Good luck with that approach, though. Not sure how it works across the pond, but here in the US, this is PRECISELY how it works. As to whether we have luck or not, let's hope we do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:33:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, you don't understand. They HAD the appropriate level of evidence and the SoS refused to do his damn job. Same with the GA Governor. So, now a Federal judge has ordered the voting machines to be secured (which they ignored) and a forensic investigation to be conducted including, hopefully, an audit of a select sampling of precincts to look for signature matches, bogus addresses, dead people voting, out of state votes, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: testimony after testimony that backs each one up. And then the numeric stats that show the impact. what more do you need? The evidence that shows the link between the two. Evidence that could possibly consist of..? A forensic recount showing scale and extent of discrepancies sufficient to call the result into question, for example. In case you missed it, the Georgia GOVERNOR and Secretary of State had every opportunity to do exactly that, but instead chose to recount the same fraudulent ballots. Nothing but a dog and pony show. Please tell me what recourse we have when they outright refuse to do what is being asked? I'll wait... Find better evidence to compel a forensic recount. What you posted in the OP was a poor quality, non-specific account of things that didn’t seem right. Well meaning as she may be, as far as “PrOoF” or evidence goes it was speculative garbage. That doesn’t give you much to go on. Time, date, individuals present, table no, description of fraudulent actors engaged in an activity with ballots that can be identified either be numerical sequence or signature anomalies, potential electronic or paper records, etc I’ve just seen an account in another thread that gives some potentially good lines of enquiry. ETA. This is potentially far more promising in terms of lines of enquiry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPVL0UV9KwNo, you don't understand. They HAD the appropriate level of evidence and the SoS refused to do his damn job. Same with the GA Governor. So, now a Federal judge has ordered the voting machines to be secured (which they ignored) and a forensic investigation to be conducted including, hopefully, an audit of a select sampling of precincts to look for signature matches, bogus addresses, dead people voting, out of state votes, etc. Now you are on the right lines.  If the evidence is there to back up the witness testimony and corroborate their account (i can only take your word for rhat), and that evidence has been ignored or dismissed without good reason, then that is a different set of circumstances to the broader assumption that witness testimony alone constitutes "PrOoF" enough overturn an election result. I fully agree with you a solid and credible forensic audit would make a big difference there and it NEEDS to be followed up, if only to reaffirm public confidence in the voting system. If they are ignoring empirical evidence and refusing to seek verification and follow the appropriate lines if investigation to a fair conclusion, then it needs to be escalated and those refusing to allow further investigation need to be investigated to see if they are complicit in a cover up of fraudulent activity. Going back to the original point, the witness testimony in the OP really gives you nothing. It essentially amounts to "I saw some people do some stuff that may or may not be iffy and somebody went out for a bit which I thought was a bit off". It lacks context and while it should not be dismissed outright, I would consider it to be vague at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:40:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's quite the accent. They don't even talk like that in the valley any longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:42:14 AM EDT
[#13]
If the elections officials and systems have nothing to hide, why are they hiding shit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:43:12 AM EDT
[#14]
The Biden supporters that were sent over here don't care.
I think we have established that. Unfortunately, neither does the Washington D.C. establishment. They don't care how they got their power back, they're just happy they got it back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:47:33 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My theory is that at this point the legal teams are trying to sway electors, not courts. Get enough “eye witness evidence” out there that is seemingly ignored and you may be able to sway them. ^This is exactly it. The goal is to provide enough cloud and doubt in order to give electors cover to go against the popular vote of the states. It is why these "hearings" are in hotels and convention centers instead of courtrooms. This is new territory. Usually when a lawyer says they have evidence and waves it on TV, we expect that evidence to be in court.....that is not happening here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:50:34 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure how it works across the pond, but here in the US, this is PRECISELY how it works. As to whether we have luck or not, let's hope we do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rescanning batches of ballots MULTIPLE times. Taking advantage of jams / errors when scanning to in order re-run the entire batch MULTIPLE times. Watch it and weep, bitches: https://rumble.com/vbiy7f-dominion-contractor-drops-a-bombshell.html That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. Wrong. Good luck with that approach, though. Not sure how it works across the pond, but here in the US, this is PRECISELY how it works. As to whether we have luck or not, let's hope we do. I hope you do as well. For a number of reasons. 1) I think Biden will be disastrous for the US. 2) I believe that the credibility of the US voting system has been severely damaged and lacks transparency for many people. Without a good quality, forensic investigation to find the truth, whatever that may be, I believe that damage will only worsen. 3) I am somewhat surprised at the heavy reliance on witness testimony by joe public and the assumption that because someone says something it MUST be accepted as proof. This is, of course, a mixed bag. Some witness testimony like that in the OP is useless. Others, like the example I posted before does have more of the specific information to help lead investigators to do a more directed and limited scope assessment of the specific ballots, location, persons, and allegations. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, on that we agree. However, it is usually a from of evidence that serves to lead investigators to other lines of enquiry and evidence which is pertinent to the allegations and may not only corroborate but add to the credibility of the witness testimony or discredit it all together.. Eyewitness evidence in itself is not necessarily proof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:51:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bit that really does seem off is that there is clearly a significant number of people questioning the validity of the election results and expressing a loss of faith in the electoral system. That absolutely is a serious matter. It underpins the basis of your democracy. Given that, you would expect all parties and candidates to be very keen to see faith in that system restored with a forensic recount in states or counties where there is sufficient concern or evidence of anomalous results. However it appears such forensic assessments are being resisted. This is exactly the point that everyone needs to focus on. This country is fighting not to maintain the right, but the will to vote. This perverse demoralization is happening as we speak. A bipartisan effort to investigate and confirm the election would save this country. Trump is working on his half... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 10:54:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Apparently, witnesses and affidavits are not good enough. We need video of the actual crimes In a place where cameras are not allowed |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:00:13 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Multiple witnesses confirmed it |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:03:26 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FFS. I'm so sick of all this evidence and nothing happening. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:05:23 AM EDT
[#21]
The current leftist position is continuing down their normal path. First deny it, then ok it may have happened, then ok it happened, then some spin that it either always happens or everybody does/did it, followed by nothing done about it.
Hillary is the most recent perfect example. She committed federal crimes, initially there was denial about it, then acknowledged it may have happened with a dash of attempting to use justification for it, then a list of the crimes committed, and finally the condoning of the corrupt behavior by not charging the criminal or truly investigating the corruption. Same thing is going on now. We are in the first stages/area between denial and acknowledgement, still to come is to see how truly corrupt we have become as a nation. Has the corruption completely taken over where nothing will be done about it? The current narrative being floated is the - yes there was corruption/fraud, but not enough to change outcome... At that point, our nation as founded has been corrupted through and through. Elections will no longer be about we the people, but rather we who control the vote count/people. The power will permanently shift to those in control/government. There will no longer be fear of being voted out of office, if you pay/play their game.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:08:44 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FFS, you can scan a ballot 100 times, it only counts as one vote. Source: my brother works for the dept of elections. Not if they don't have identifiers on them. They would count again and again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:12:17 AM EDT
[#23]
ITT OP learns most of the people demanding proof really don't want proof.
They just think it's a way to stump those who believe the election was stolen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:14:24 AM EDT
[#24]
Watch this one. Why would they be trying to get republican poll watcher kicked out? What were the trying to hide?
 Michigan poll challenger, who was mistaken for a Democrat, told to get Republican challengers out |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:24:46 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ITT OP learns most of the people demanding proof really don't want proof. They just think it's a way to stump those who 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:28:33 AM EDT
[#26]
Tick-Tock........they have until December 14th to do something, or the Electoral College votes.....and Trumps done and out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:28:36 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 3) I am somewhat surprised at the heavy reliance on witness testimony by joe public and the assumption that because someone says something it MUST be accepted as proof. If ONE person comes out and claims that they witnessed vote tampering, then you have to weigh that testimony and accept it or not as you see fit. If a HUNDRED people all come forward separately, and make similar claims... backed up by videos which appear to support their stories... backed up by statistical analyses of the end results which indicate that apparently math does some truly odd things in elections counting houses that it doesn't do anywhere else in the normal universe... Well, that's a fish of a different barrel, my friend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:36:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: FFS, you can scan a ballot 100 times, it only counts as one vote. Source: my brother works for the dept of elections. For Fucks Sake @peterman this was ALREADY addressed as being true back in July. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/will-georgias-new-voting-machines-solve-election-problems-or-make-them-worse J. Alex Halderman: By analyzing the structure of the Q.R. codes, I have been able to learn that there's nothing that stops an attacker from just duplicating one, and the duplicate would count the same as the original bar code. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 11:36:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They don't even talk like that in the valley any longer. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's quite the accent. They don't even talk like that in the valley any longer. Listening to that sounds like when I question my 8 year old about fighting with her sister. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 12:32:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Circumstantial evidence adds up. Many a man has been convicted on circumstantial evidence, especially when it is overwhelming to the point that it can not be coincidence. At the very least, some of these districts did not follow constitutional law in keeping the integrity of the vote. Ballots out of the chain of command, machines hooked to the internet, poorly trained workers, suppression of logs, suppressing poll workers from observation, not allowing ballot challenges, back dating postal marks and the list grows. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Again, that doesn't necessarily constitute evidence of fraud.Nor does it give you anything to work with in terms of sale and extent. You still need empirical data too show the scale and extent of the discrepancy, and evidence to show that the election was not free and fair. This is a much bigger ask than I think some of the people on this forum realise. You cannot just claim fraud and then expect the result to be discarded. Circumstantial evidence adds up. Many a man has been convicted on circumstantial evidence, especially when it is overwhelming to the point that it can not be coincidence. At the very least, some of these districts did not follow constitutional law in keeping the integrity of the vote. Ballots out of the chain of command, machines hooked to the internet, poorly trained workers, suppression of logs, suppressing poll workers from observation, not allowing ballot challenges, back dating postal marks and the list grows. Circumstantial evidence does add up, and can build a fairly convincing picture, but it is still circumstantial evidence. You can certainly conclude that such evidence points to the need for a forensic investigation and secure evidence gathering process. However, circumstantial evidence, like witness testimony, is not in itself proof. It is important to make that distinction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 12:37:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If ONE person comes out and claims that they witnessed vote tampering, then you have to weigh that testimony and accept it or not as you see fit. If a HUNDRED people all come forward separately, and make similar claims... backed up by videos which appear to support their stories... backed up by statistical analyses of the end results which indicate that apparently math does some truly odd things in elections counting houses that it doesn't do anywhere else in the normal universe... Well, that's a fish of a different barrel, my friend. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 3) I am somewhat surprised at the heavy reliance on witness testimony by joe public and the assumption that because someone says something it MUST be accepted as proof. If ONE person comes out and claims that they witnessed vote tampering, then you have to weigh that testimony and accept it or not as you see fit. If a HUNDRED people all come forward separately, and make similar claims... backed up by videos which appear to support their stories... backed up by statistical analyses of the end results which indicate that apparently math does some truly odd things in elections counting houses that it doesn't do anywhere else in the normal universe... Well, that's a fish of a different barrel, my friend. Not really. You are describing a scale of “grounds to suspect”. They are both points on a weight of suspicion scale, not a weight of evidence scale. The weight of evidence behind those claims comes in corroboration of the claims with conclusive evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 12:43:26 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A preponderance that something may have happened? Sure. I think many people can see the rather dodgy optics of thousands of ballots suddenly being found in a box, or on a memory stick which just happens to be enough to change the outcome of an electoral count. That requires more than an opinion of people with a vested interest. Unfortunately there is little evidence currently being presented to quantify the scale and extent of this alleged voter fraud, or the means. Nor is there solid evidence to clearly define whether sheer incompetence, systemic failure or deliberate intent of fraud was the cause were it to be accepted that the election was not conducted to an appropriate standard. The bit that really does seem off is that there is clearly a significant number of people questioning the validity of the election results and expressing a loss of faith in the electoral system. That absolutely is a serious matter. It underpins the basis of your democracy. Given that, you would expect all parties and candidates to be very keen to see faith in that system restored with a forensic recount in states or counties where there is sufficient concern or evidence of anomalous results. However it appears such forensic assessments are being resisted. You could argue that the initial preponderance is backed up by a subsequent refusal to substantiate the the voting outcome with a forensic recount of the votes. Grounds for suspicion? Absolutely. But not the smoking gun covered in the DNA of the culprits that you are going to need to get results overturned. To do that I think you have to win a civil case with evidence that would satisfy a test in court sufficient to empirically demonstrate fraud on a scale and extent that either throws the result into serious doubt, leading to a re-count or a re-run of the election, or demonstrates criminal Interference. I think the preponderance you rightly refer to in this case will be held to a much higher standard than many anticipate, given the potential ramifications. What it should be is sufficient enough to have ordered a stay on certification, an impoundment of machines and the allowance of forensic audits as part of an expedited discovery process. THAT is how you produce the evidence you are suggesting. why that didn't happen is another conversation altogether. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 12:52:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As a student of history I would point out right before the French revolution and it's Guillotine being employed wholesale there was period of wild ass disinformation and it's lack of trust of all things.... There is a definitive pattern unfolding with the government essentially stating "Who you going to believe me or your lying eyes?".... Real issue now is there is such an appearance of impropriety it does not matter if it happened in the first place. (Georgia really screwed the pooch on this front by using the same suspect machines to recount and not checking validity of absentee ballots). Now its the APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY that is the issue and the natural lack of trust that follows. There is also the curious 180 degree changes in narrative. Up to election day it was "foreign interference" and next morning it was a complete reversal of trust the vote because we say so. Unfortunately history says a couple of things are going to occur very shortly...Violence is now baked into the cake. The division runs to deep, the de-humanizing speech has begun. That always proceeds the violence of one side feeling justified to impose it's will on the other half. What comes next depends on who succeeds during the violent phase. My WAG is that it will be full tyranny or entropy (Balkanization to some degree). Everyone should read and pay attention to this, if you aren't already. What is unfolding is nothing new. It has happened many times before, and follows the exact same playbook every time. The next chapter is always violence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 12:55:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. Good luck with that approach, though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rescanning batches of ballots MULTIPLE times. Taking advantage of jams / errors when scanning to in order re-run the entire batch MULTIPLE times. Watch it and weep, bitches: https://rumble.com/vbiy7f-dominion-contractor-drops-a-bombshell.html That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. Wrong. Good luck with that approach, though. No, he is not wrong. The court decides whether the testimony of the witnesses is credible evidence, after hearing both sides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 1:00:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rescanning batches of ballots MULTIPLE times. Taking advantage of jams / errors when scanning to in order re-run the entire batch MULTIPLE times. Watch it and weep, bitches: https://rumble.com/vbiy7f-dominion-contractor-drops-a-bombshell.html That’s not proof. Not even close. It’s a testimony. And it requires corroboration to confirm that the testimony has a basis in evidence - most likely through a full hands-on recount to see if there is a discrepancy. Without corroboration all you have is an allegation, which cannot be quantified, a claim that something a bit dodgy was going on because it didn’t “feel right”. Not sure what is going on but if that’s the best they can muster then you are screwed. It really does need a recount and some empirical evidence to corroborate the allegations. If what she is saying is true then this should be reflected in the figures from that counting centre. Hope that evidence can be found. Except that's not the way it works. The eyewitness testimony is evidence. The defense then have to come up with a way to impugn that witness statement. So, THEY would have to request from the court that the locals do a recount. They're not going to do that because more fraud would be found. Thing is, the statistical analyses on those areas are all that's really needed to corroborate the witnesses testimony. As to whether a court will order a true audit of the entire thing, that remains to be seen. They could simply toss the votes in that particular area. In which case, Trump wins. exactly, each testimony on its own is not enough, but all of the testimonies that show the fraud, expert testimony on the Dominion system, and the numerical analysis that back it up is enough to either support the state reps to elect their own electors or Congress not accept the results, or win a case at the SCOUS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 1:04:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now you are on the right lines. If the evidence is there to back up the witness testimony and corroborate their account (i can only take your word for rhat), and that evidence has been ignored or dismissed without good reason, then that is a different set of circumstances to the broader assumption that witness testimony alone constitutes "PrOoF" enough overturn an election result. I fully agree with you a solid and credible forensic audit would make a big difference there and it NEEDS to be followed up, if only to reaffirm public confidence in the voting system. If they are ignoring empirical evidence and refusing to seek verification and follow the appropriate lines if investigation to a fair conclusion, then it needs to be escalated and those refusing to allow further investigation need to be investigated to see if they are complicit in a cover up of fraudulent activity. Going back to the original point, the witness testimony in the OP really gives you nothing. It essentially amounts to "I saw some people do some stuff that may or may not be iffy and somebody went out for a bit which I thought was a bit off". It lacks context and while it should not be dismissed outright, I would consider it to be vague at best. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: testimony after testimony that backs each one up. And then the numeric stats that show the impact. what more do you need? The evidence that shows the link between the two. Evidence that could possibly consist of..? A forensic recount showing scale and extent of discrepancies sufficient to call the result into question, for example. In case you missed it, the Georgia GOVERNOR and Secretary of State had every opportunity to do exactly that, but instead chose to recount the same fraudulent ballots. Nothing but a dog and pony show. Please tell me what recourse we have when they outright refuse to do what is being asked? I'll wait... Find better evidence to compel a forensic recount. What you posted in the OP was a poor quality, non-specific account of things that didn’t seem right. Well meaning as she may be, as far as “PrOoF” or evidence goes it was speculative garbage. That doesn’t give you much to go on. Time, date, individuals present, table no, description of fraudulent actors engaged in an activity with ballots that can be identified either be numerical sequence or signature anomalies, potential electronic or paper records, etc I’ve just seen an account in another thread that gives some potentially good lines of enquiry. ETA. This is potentially far more promising in terms of lines of enquiry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPVL0UV9KwNo, you don't understand. They HAD the appropriate level of evidence and the SoS refused to do his damn job. Same with the GA Governor. So, now a Federal judge has ordered the voting machines to be secured (which they ignored) and a forensic investigation to be conducted including, hopefully, an audit of a select sampling of precincts to look for signature matches, bogus addresses, dead people voting, out of state votes, etc. Now you are on the right lines. If the evidence is there to back up the witness testimony and corroborate their account (i can only take your word for rhat), and that evidence has been ignored or dismissed without good reason, then that is a different set of circumstances to the broader assumption that witness testimony alone constitutes "PrOoF" enough overturn an election result. I fully agree with you a solid and credible forensic audit would make a big difference there and it NEEDS to be followed up, if only to reaffirm public confidence in the voting system. If they are ignoring empirical evidence and refusing to seek verification and follow the appropriate lines if investigation to a fair conclusion, then it needs to be escalated and those refusing to allow further investigation need to be investigated to see if they are complicit in a cover up of fraudulent activity. Going back to the original point, the witness testimony in the OP really gives you nothing. It essentially amounts to "I saw some people do some stuff that may or may not be iffy and somebody went out for a bit which I thought was a bit off". It lacks context and while it should not be dismissed outright, I would consider it to be vague at best. well to be fair, what you saw was each person giving a 3 min account of their sworn statement (affidavit) and then giving them the actual written sworn statement. So there is much more detail in the written statements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 1:19:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably one of the worst “witness” testimonies I’ve ever seen. OP, that lady is helping to make your argument at all. I want it to be true as much as anyone on here, but parading these half retards in front of a camera isn’t going to sway anyone in a court room. I watched ten minutes of her talking and I can see why she’s a “freelance” IT employee. She presented no factual evidence whatsoever in the ten minutes I watched. Only her opinions, which themselves were poorly explained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 1:21:51 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I watched ten minutes of her talking and I can see why she’s a “freelance” IT employee. She presented no factual evidence whatsoever in the ten minutes I watched. Only her opinions, which themselves were poorly explained. She gave factual information in her testimony that should make even a democrat see the need for a formal audit of the ballots, polling books and tabulations. Just a general statement......not suggesting you are a democrat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 2:56:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What it should be is sufficient enough to have ordered a stay on certification, an impoundment of machines and the allowance of forensic audits as part of an expedited discovery process. THAT is how you produce the evidence you are suggesting. why that didn't happen is another conversation altogether. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A preponderance that something may have happened? Sure. I think many people can see the rather dodgy optics of thousands of ballots suddenly being found in a box, or on a memory stick which just happens to be enough to change the outcome of an electoral count. That requires more than an opinion of people with a vested interest. Unfortunately there is little evidence currently being presented to quantify the scale and extent of this alleged voter fraud, or the means. Nor is there solid evidence to clearly define whether sheer incompetence, systemic failure or deliberate intent of fraud was the cause were it to be accepted that the election was not conducted to an appropriate standard. The bit that really does seem off is that there is clearly a significant number of people questioning the validity of the election results and expressing a loss of faith in the electoral system. That absolutely is a serious matter. It underpins the basis of your democracy. Given that, you would expect all parties and candidates to be very keen to see faith in that system restored with a forensic recount in states or counties where there is sufficient concern or evidence of anomalous results. However it appears such forensic assessments are being resisted. You could argue that the initial preponderance is backed up by a subsequent refusal to substantiate the the voting outcome with a forensic recount of the votes. Grounds for suspicion? Absolutely. But not the smoking gun covered in the DNA of the culprits that you are going to need to get results overturned. To do that I think you have to win a civil case with evidence that would satisfy a test in court sufficient to empirically demonstrate fraud on a scale and extent that either throws the result into serious doubt, leading to a re-count or a re-run of the election, or demonstrates criminal Interference. I think the preponderance you rightly refer to in this case will be held to a much higher standard than many anticipate, given the potential ramifications. What it should be is sufficient enough to have ordered a stay on certification, an impoundment of machines and the allowance of forensic audits as part of an expedited discovery process. THAT is how you produce the evidence you are suggesting. why that didn't happen is another conversation altogether. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 3:15:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really. You are describing a scale of “grounds to suspect”. They are both points on a weight of suspicion scale, not a weight of evidence scale. The weight of evidence behind those claims comes in corroboration of the claims with conclusive evidence. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 3) I am somewhat surprised at the heavy reliance on witness testimony by joe public and the assumption that because someone says something it MUST be accepted as proof. If ONE person comes out and claims that they witnessed vote tampering, then you have to weigh that testimony and accept it or not as you see fit. If a HUNDRED people all come forward separately, and make similar claims... backed up by videos which appear to support their stories... backed up by statistical analyses of the end results which indicate that apparently math does some truly odd things in elections counting houses that it doesn't do anywhere else in the normal universe... Well, that's a fish of a different barrel, my friend. Not really. You are describing a scale of “grounds to suspect”. They are both points on a weight of suspicion scale, not a weight of evidence scale. The weight of evidence behind those claims comes in corroboration of the claims with conclusive evidence. Except "conclusive evidence" is NOT required for a judge or jury to rule in any particular case. Thousands of people are in prison (here in America, and I'm quite sure over in tea and crumpet land as well) based entirely on eyewitness testimony. And if "conclusive evidence" in fact WAS a requirement, what could you submit to "prove" elections fraud to your particular satisfaction? Are hundreds of eyewitness accounts, backed by video, backed by statistical analyses not good enough? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 3:37:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Rescanning batches of ballots MULTIPLE times. Taking advantage of jams / errors when scanning in order re-run the entire batch MULTIPLE times. Watch it and weep, bitches: https://rumble.com/vbiy7f-dominion-contractor-drops-a-bombshell.html Lots of talking. Not a lot of "evidence". The witness seems to have difficulty articulating exactly what happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 4:15:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good! Where is it? You can go to states websites and look for yourself. On PA's site it is/was very clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 4:39:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Circumstantial evidence does add up, and can build a fairly convincing picture, but it is still circumstantial evidence. You can certainly conclude that such evidence points to the need for a forensic investigation and secure evidence gathering process. However, circumstantial evidence, like witness testimony, is not in itself proof. It is important to make that distinction. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again, that doesn't necessarily constitute evidence of fraud.Nor does it give you anything to work with in terms of sale and extent. You still need empirical data too show the scale and extent of the discrepancy, and evidence to show that the election was not free and fair. This is a much bigger ask than I think some of the people on this forum realise. You cannot just claim fraud and then expect the result to be discarded. Circumstantial evidence adds up. Many a man has been convicted on circumstantial evidence, especially when it is overwhelming to the point that it can not be coincidence. At the very least, some of these districts did not follow constitutional law in keeping the integrity of the vote. Ballots out of the chain of command, machines hooked to the internet, poorly trained workers, suppression of logs, suppressing poll workers from observation, not allowing ballot challenges, back dating postal marks and the list grows. Circumstantial evidence does add up, and can build a fairly convincing picture, but it is still circumstantial evidence. You can certainly conclude that such evidence points to the need for a forensic investigation and secure evidence gathering process. However, circumstantial evidence, like witness testimony, is not in itself proof. It is important to make that distinction. I think John gotti might disagree with your assessment. I do not recall them presenting any hard evidence other than testimony to convict him of murder. "In 1992, Gotti was convicted of five murders, conspiracy to commit murder, racketeering, obstruction of justice, tax evasion, illegal gambling, extortion, and loansharking." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 4:42:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ^This is exactly it. The goal is to provide enough cloud and doubt in order to give electors cover to go against the popular vote of the states. It is why these "hearings" are in hotels and convention centers instead of courtrooms. This is new territory. Usually when a lawyer says they have evidence and waves it on TV, we expect that evidence to be in court.....that is not happening here. Holy fuck I hope you're wrong I might expect a few to change and give Trump the win if they can prove that most states had fraud and change the vote count. But what you're saying is that like 50 electoral votes will go against the grain. I really hope they have more planned than just that, or the USSC sees what a shitshow this was and does something |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 5:11:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except "conclusive evidence" is NOT required for a judge or jury to rule in any particular case. Thousands of people are in prison (here in America, and I'm quite sure over in tea and crumpet land as well) based entirely on eyewitness testimony. And if "conclusive evidence" in fact WAS a requirement, what could you submit to "prove" elections fraud to your particular satisfaction? Are hundreds of eyewitness accounts, backed by video, backed by statistical analyses not good enough? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 3) I am somewhat surprised at the heavy reliance on witness testimony by joe public and the assumption that because someone says something it MUST be accepted as proof. If ONE person comes out and claims that they witnessed vote tampering, then you have to weigh that testimony and accept it or not as you see fit. If a HUNDRED people all come forward separately, and make similar claims... backed up by videos which appear to support their stories... backed up by statistical analyses of the end results which indicate that apparently math does some truly odd things in elections counting houses that it doesn't do anywhere else in the normal universe... Well, that's a fish of a different barrel, my friend. Not really. You are describing a scale of “grounds to suspect”. They are both points on a weight of suspicion scale, not a weight of evidence scale. The weight of evidence behind those claims comes in corroboration of the claims with conclusive evidence. Except "conclusive evidence" is NOT required for a judge or jury to rule in any particular case. Thousands of people are in prison (here in America, and I'm quite sure over in tea and crumpet land as well) based entirely on eyewitness testimony. And if "conclusive evidence" in fact WAS a requirement, what could you submit to "prove" elections fraud to your particular satisfaction? Are hundreds of eyewitness accounts, backed by video, backed by statistical analyses not good enough? That depends on the statistical and video evidence you speak of. I haven't seen it all so I am not in a position to comment. What you do have is a starting point for an investigation, certainly. But if you if you think you are going to overturn a published election result and all that would entail based on a witness testimony, especially one as poor as in the OP, and some theoretical statistics with a bit of cellphone video, then you might be woefully ill-equipped for the fight ahead. The statistical evidence so far doesn't appear to have been very effective, nor has the video evidence, as I understand it. Conclusive evidence my not be required for a civil ruling but it is the sledgehammer you need, whether you like it or not, to compel a favourable outcome because no Judge is going to overturn a published election result and all that entails without conclusive evidence justifying them doing so. Anything less than conclusive evidence sees your chances of success significantly reduced. You are now one month past the election. The electoral college votes in less than two weeks, I believe? Lets hope that this "Kraken" or whatever they are calling it offers something considerably more substantial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 5:12:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: well to be fair, what you saw was each person giving a 3 min account of their sworn statement (affidavit) and then giving them the actual written sworn statement. So there is much more detail in the written statements. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: testimony after testimony that backs each one up. And then the numeric stats that show the impact. what more do you need? The evidence that shows the link between the two. Evidence that could possibly consist of..? A forensic recount showing scale and extent of discrepancies sufficient to call the result into question, for example. In case you missed it, the Georgia GOVERNOR and Secretary of State had every opportunity to do exactly that, but instead chose to recount the same fraudulent ballots. Nothing but a dog and pony show. Please tell me what recourse we have when they outright refuse to do what is being asked? I'll wait... Find better evidence to compel a forensic recount. What you posted in the OP was a poor quality, non-specific account of things that didn’t seem right. Well meaning as she may be, as far as “PrOoF” or evidence goes it was speculative garbage. That doesn’t give you much to go on. Time, date, individuals present, table no, description of fraudulent actors engaged in an activity with ballots that can be identified either be numerical sequence or signature anomalies, potential electronic or paper records, etc I’ve just seen an account in another thread that gives some potentially good lines of enquiry. ETA. This is potentially far more promising in terms of lines of enquiry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPVL0UV9KwNo, you don't understand. They HAD the appropriate level of evidence and the SoS refused to do his damn job. Same with the GA Governor. So, now a Federal judge has ordered the voting machines to be secured (which they ignored) and a forensic investigation to be conducted including, hopefully, an audit of a select sampling of precincts to look for signature matches, bogus addresses, dead people voting, out of state votes, etc. Now you are on the right lines. If the evidence is there to back up the witness testimony and corroborate their account (i can only take your word for rhat), and that evidence has been ignored or dismissed without good reason, then that is a different set of circumstances to the broader assumption that witness testimony alone constitutes "PrOoF" enough overturn an election result. I fully agree with you a solid and credible forensic audit would make a big difference there and it NEEDS to be followed up, if only to reaffirm public confidence in the voting system. If they are ignoring empirical evidence and refusing to seek verification and follow the appropriate lines if investigation to a fair conclusion, then it needs to be escalated and those refusing to allow further investigation need to be investigated to see if they are complicit in a cover up of fraudulent activity. Going back to the original point, the witness testimony in the OP really gives you nothing. It essentially amounts to "I saw some people do some stuff that may or may not be iffy and somebody went out for a bit which I thought was a bit off". It lacks context and while it should not be dismissed outright, I would consider it to be vague at best. well to be fair, what you saw was each person giving a 3 min account of their sworn statement (affidavit) and then giving them the actual written sworn statement. So there is much more detail in the written statements. A fair point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 6:55:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ya all know about the stolen USPS truck in Pennsylvania? 200k ballots on it that were already filled out...from New York. Now that's a crazy story...but true. So, there are a lot of news stories about stolen USPs trucks. It happens often enough, makes local news, engine is running and methhead takes off in it. A DuckDuckGo search will yield a few. But, this guy comes out and does a presser. No local coverage. There are local TV news, local papers, even young local crime beat reporters who would love a juicy story to make a name with. I could find -nothing except repetition of the presser on shady websites. Worse, this falls under jurisdiction of both FBI and USPS Postal Inspectors. I imagine they’d be really interested. I don’t know if you’ve ever met either, a lot of them were cops first, and are actually... patriots who give a damn. Believe it or not, there are still bank robberies, thefts, kidnappings, and other things LEOs do, as well as more complex crimes. So I am just wondering - do you believe the story is being suppressed, that it’s currently under investigation, or that there is a massive conspiracy where a bunch of people (some former cops, met one former Army infantry with CIB) who are all in on the plot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 7:18:13 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FFS, you can scan a ballot 100 times, it only counts as one vote. Source: my brother works for the dept of elections. More bullshit. I didn't look when I voted, but are scan ballots not serialized? I would be amazed if they aren't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 7:20:53 PM EDT
[#49]
What is the "Chicago warehouse?"
Where is the "Chicago warehouse?" WTF is in the "Chicago warehouse?" Who TF was in the "Chicago warehouse?" If one state's election is tainted with fraud all other states have no further interest in the process. This election had at least 6 states with bullshit going on in blue shithole towns. What interest would a small state have in remaining in the Union with a rat infested process? The numbers analysis indicate shear or near impossibilities of what occurred. Affidavits everywhere. Everyone knows it whether they admit or not. Those that won't or can't are complicit. No election integrity will mean violence. The radical left has already fired the first shots. Bunch of fucking shills on this site and those who have their heads shoved square up their ass. CW2 is about to get started. Fucking Dems that stole this election and brazenly don't give a shit about it have no clue about the world of hurt they will unleash if Biden is allowed to steal this election. May God help us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2020 7:40:31 PM EDT
[#50]
“The numbers analysis indicate shear or near impossibilities of what occurred. Affidavits everywhere. Everyone knows it whether they admit or not. Those that won't or can't are complicit.”
Unpossible! Well, that certainly leaves no room for a dissenting view. Pretty unAmerican, really. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
