Some of those sworn affidavits said things like poll workers were rude. And the effort it takes to throw out a bunch of baseless claims is wayyy easier than the effort to actually substantiate and win a case in court.
You have to wonder why, with all the money and resources at his disposal, even when brought before his own appointed judges, the President of the United States and his vast array of lawyers and affidavits couldn’t prove “election fraud” or “massive voter fraud” where it actually counts, in a court of law.
What’s your take on why?
Legal system completely broken?
Grand conspiracy involving Trump’s own appointees?
Or maybe the “election fraud” they’re claiming doesn’t actually add up to election fraud (even though some people really, badly want it to)?
Maybe Trump and his team are just throwing shit to see what sticks, getting free money to “take back the election,” and consolidating support and influence all at the same time regardless of the result.
With all the money the Leftist put into the campaign (500 million merely from Zuckerberg) why are they working so hard to hide potential evidence? In 1/10th the time and money they could have just said “here are the machines. Take a look yourself.” Instead they have gone to extremes to keep observers and thorough auditing away. Who is really creating the suspicion - Right or the Left?
In a word - China.
In 2 words - China, Russia
Ok 3 words - China, Russia, Israel
But let’s not forget all of the extreme effort to overthrow Mr Trump with prior proven false allegations supported by MSM and the exposed guilty DNC for 4 years. What’s a little more fraud?
Or maybe Mr Hidin, Lyin Biden did exactly what he said - “We put together the most sophisticated fraud campaign in US history” - let’s cheat in every way we can and see what sticks.
Simply the effort to hide easily exposed exculpatory evidence that would be very beneficial to Biden is all but an admission of guilt - even without all of the eye witnesses and maths analysis. There is no question that there was massive fraud.
I don’t know, Mr. R. That all seems like more left wing narrative–not necessarily lies, but not really convincing. The reason I posted the video on the hearing is because it was direct and live, not hearsay. Unless you think it was all staged, I’d say it’s pretty reliable footage of what actually went down in the hearing. This Brian Cohen seems like he just came out of a boy band and was told to read from a script some left wing propagandist wrote.
I have seen John Poulos’s testimony and there is some discrepancy between what he said about the Dominion machines and what other witnesses said, so I’m not sure what’s going on there, but someone is obviously lying or there’s some major misunderstandings going on.
It was, but only because I was looking at the bigger picture. At the time (2016), I could see where the struggle between liberals and conservatives, left and right, was going–namely, the collapse of American, the fate of Rome–I just didn’t know how the details would pan out. I saw myself standing at the edge of a dark vortex, looking across to Mexico, yelling “Are we having fun yet?!” Didn’t know where the vortex lead (except hell) and now I’m seeing glimpses of the bottom in places like Seattle where civilization has completely collapsed and anarchy stands in its wake. And knowing hell, this isn’t really the bottom. Hell is a bottomless pit. As soon as you think you’ve hit the bottom, you burst through it to find a deeper hell.
I wouldn’t say it’s a desire, just the only way I see of overthrowing the current institution given that we’re passed the point of no return. Time to pull a page from good ol’ Hobbes. The left is already doing it. The right better get off its ass and start fighting back.
But have we seen it play out in history? Is there a precedence for this sort of thing?
I read this interesting article yesterday that points out that the legitimacy of the elections of the last 4 presidents were contested, like it’s a new trend among Americans: bigthink.com/politics-current-a … rous-trend
So you’re saying the risk of serving jail time is sooo low it doesn’t count for anything? Really??? So how would swearing an oath be any different?
And rude behavior’s not the only thing they testified to.
Because the supreme court wouldn’t hear the case. It’s pretty easy to claim there is no evidence when you don’t allow the evidence in.
Now, why wouldn’t the supreme court hear the case? Your guess is as good as mine, but some sources are saying the supreme court is beholden to the CCP.
Maybe. Trump is known for being a shit thrower. But look, I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know the truth. I’m surrounded by lies and so are you. You don’t know the truth anymore than I do. But I’m far more persuaded by right leaning sources than left leaning, and I’m finding it exceedingly harder to stay neutral or agnostic the deeper into this I get. Corruption in politics is a real thing, and knowing the philosophies and mentality of the left, I’m placing my bets on them.
We have a very distinct prediction for Biden’s term. They say Biden’s mental state will render him incapable of fulfilling his duties as president and that’s when Kamala will swoop in and take over. I see no reason the Democrats would wait for his second term, so I predict that if this happens, it will happen soon.
As a side note, if Kamala becomes president, I think it would be a shame for women in America. Wouldn’t women want the first female president to have earned the presidency in a clean, traditional way? Not because she fell into it by default rather than popular vote? Not because she had to fill in for a incapacitated president? There’s no real victory in that, and it would ruin it for all women for the rest of American history
Kamala Harris would be an even worse disaster than Joe Biden for the United States. ^^^gib
At any rate I’m a revolutionary, so long as the nation collapses I don’t care all that much so long as we get there. Whatever needs to happen for a revolution I’m all for it.
Yes. They range from ridiculous to plausible, but it doesn’t really matter what you or I think - that’s my point. These disputes are for the legal system to determine.
News organizations are biased, but I am talking about the legal system. Why can’t Trump win a case about election fraud in the courts?
Spell it out then. What are you implying that China, Russia, and Israel have to do with Trump not proving fraud in U.S. courts?
So why haven’t Trump’s legal cases proven this? Save us both a lot of wasted time - I just wanna know why you think the courts wouldn’t confirm your view.
I’m talking about all 60+ cases that were brought across multiple states, including the Supreme Court cases (there were multiple). The Trump campaign and GOP efforts to overturn the election have been resoundingly defeated by respected judges of various states and political leanings. Do you believe U.S. courts in general are compromised by China?
That’s fair enough. Hence my focus on the courts and not what ilp thinks about the affidavits. Anyone who seriously believes in claims of election fraud or mass voter fraud being made by Trump/GOP, must believe there is something drastically wrong with the U.S. justice system that the courts have overwhelmingly sided against the Trump campaign. If you actually look at most of the cases, you’ll see that the Trump campaign almost never brought any cases about mass fraud/election fraud. They were saying one thing on social media, to their base, and very different claims in court. That’s also very interesting.
They say they have over 1000. Can you link us to one so we can see for ourselves?
Most of the “Trump cases” are NOT from the Trump team. They are individuals, paying their own attorneys and suing. Their attorneys are attacked, most give in before any judge gets to hear the case.
When it comes to the Trump team, the Texas SCOTUS suit, and others. Not one single court hearing has been allowed.
They each have to ask for a hearing in order to present their evidence. The courts are not allowing even a hearing. Even SCOTUS backed away stating only that Texas didn’t have standing (which is absurd since SCOTUS is the only court a state can go to for such suits).
They are afraid. This is a much, much bigger deal than you think. It is NOT merely another US Presidential election.
I’m sorry. I didn’t know that you are completely oblivious to the world’s political state and the war. You must be American. It would take some time to catch you up on that.
Because they have not been allowed IN the courts to present their case.
How about you explain to us why 60 judges in the US have not even allowed the evidence to be presented such that they would know if the evidence was valid. They say there are over 1000 eyewitnesses. You can’t get better than an eyewitness to a crime. If it was a robbery or murder case, they would instantly allow a hearing to hear the witnesses.
When they went directly to the legislators, every time they did, and asked for a hearing to present at least some of their evidence. [b]The legislators allowed the hearings.
And in EVERY case. The legislators have tried what they could against their own governors to get the vote either redone or switched back to Trump.[/b] They have the legal right. The governors do not. But the governors stand in the way.
obsrvr, I’ve engaged with you in good faith. Clearly you aren’t here to do the same. I don’t waste my time.
My explanation for the many court decisions against the Trump team is simple - I don’t think Trump’s team had credible legal arguments or good evidence of election fraud. And the burden is on them to prove their claims in court. So if they haven’t been able to one could blame team Trump or the legal system, or some mix of both.
I’ve seen the hearings in Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, and I’ve heard about the supreme court refusing to see the case. I know there were other court cases but I don’t know how many or what the outcomes are. ← That’s the limit of my knowledge. The hearings are pretty convincing that there was voter fraud, but I don’t think my only option is to say there is something wrong with the American justice system. I’d prefer to say I don’t know.
But I could venture some guesses.
For one, I could follow obsrvr’s points. Maybe they all did refuse to see the case. Maybe they’re not all trying Trump’s case.
Or maybe, some of the 60+ did see the case, and out of those, some did rule voter fraud–they just weren’t the majority (you’ll have to tell me–you didn’t say ALL 60+ ruled no evidence of voter fraud, or if they did, you didn’t say whether there were others above the 60 in which the Trump cases succeeded).
Or maybe there’s a discrepancy between the layman’s understanding of “evidence” and what that term means in a court of law. Looking at the evidence brought forth in the legislative hearings, that to me (a layman) looks like evidence. But maybe in a court of law, there’s a higher bar. I know in court, all it takes is for the defense to raise some level of reasonable doubt for the case to be ruled not guilty (I’m reminded of the O.J. Simpson trial). I’ve heard arguments that the Dominion machines counted votes more than once only because the ballots were jamming in the machines which prompted the pole worker to feed the ballot in several times. ← So it could just be an honest mistake. I’ve also heard arguments about the definition of “place”. The law stipulates that Republican and Democrat representatives have to be present to witness the counting. But what counts as the “place” where they have to be wasn’t specific enough to entail that they had to be within view of the countings. ← That to me doesn’t seem like an honest mistake but it would be technically within the law. Things like this might not sway the layperson that there was no fraud, especially if you take all the evidence en masse, but it might be enough to compel a judge to say there is no voter fraud.
^ But these are just guesses. My official answer is I don’t know (which includes skepticism even over your claim that there were 60+ court trials in which Trump lost the case–no offense). Thanks for the link to the affidavits.
The Trump campaign recruited most of those people (several say that explicitly) to be GOP poll watchers. Trump has been priming them to be paranoid and suspicious all year. “union people were staring at me” “I felt intimidated” “they let democrats observe closer” “someone obscured my view” “I challenged all these votes and my concerns were not adequately addressed” ← there was a lot of that. I’ve already said some of the statements are potentially plausible, but I would bet most are rooted in paranoia, standoffishness between observers and workers, and misunderstandings. Again we could rant back and forth all day about our interpretation of these statements. At the end of the day, you either trust the justice system or you don’t. It seems you don’t.
Whether that is mere rumor or not (and it very probably is) there is nothing untoward in doing that. Poll watchers are supposed to be suspicious. That is their job. It would be silly to recruit people to be your poll watchers if they were not on your side or not willing to suspect fraud. They are not supposed to be neutral. They are RNC poll watchers to counter DNC potential fraud. The DNC has their own team of anti-Trump, anti-RNC poll watchers.
So that argument is for naught.
And among other things - ALL of which are illegal election activity that allows for illegality to go unseen. Those claims point to specific ILLEGAL activity. Their laws specifically state that such activity SHALL not be allowed.
And that is why those claims were submitted. They point out exact types of illegal activity, not merely discomforts of the observers.
Again your argument is for naught.
How many does it take for a court to say, “Ok some of these claims warrant a hearing”?
And it seems that you blindly do. But then you also seem to not understand the laws nor the court system that you HEAR have rejected Mr Trumps claims.
You are merely accepting the REPORTERS - the MSM. Then when you look at the actual evidence presented, you claim that despite some of the evidence probably being legit, the courts must know what they are doing so I’ll ARGUE that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are arguing out of admitted ignorance rather than just saying that you do not know but you have faith in the courts.
You have faith in your system. I do not have faith in it. I am more scientific - Nullius ad Verba.
So I look at the evidence to see if everything actually and rationally adds up to what the courts are reported to have said. And it isn’t adding up - and in a really big way not adding up.
So you can hold onto your faith. But you can’t argue blind faith.
Entirely reasonable. On the 60+ court case thing, instead of telling me you’re skeptical, you could always do a simple web search to confirm or deny. It’s not the type of thing that’s particularly hard to find in a google search. I provide what I think are credible sources all the time, but I find that many here will simply tell me they don’t trust the MSM… and disregard.
For what it’s worth, I’ll post a link. This was the count two weeks ago, I think it’s around 60 cases now. Brief summary of each case included. nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e … s-n1248289
And there is very good reason for that. Those “reliable sources” have been PROVEN wrong over and over and over to the point that it is obvious that they are intentionally misleading and have been for at very least the last 4 years.
