Watch the entire testimony. Spells out exactly how dominion failed the American people, and how refusing to release the ballot which blatantly has the code on it resulted in a 93.67% adjudication rate. Also mentions people batch scanning ballots once in adjudication caught on camera.
Not sure if a judge would accept that some ballots having barcodes in a different place is evidence of fraud, given that different counties need different things on their ballots. There's also absolutely no supporting evidence in the article for the claim that the barcode would cause the machine to reject the votes, let alone the claim that that would result in fraud.
Given that the evidence for fraud is overwhelming, why are we relying on vague articles like this that take a perfectly normal situation, like different counties having slightly different ballots, and extrapolating that fraud occurred? Don't we actually have some direct evidence of fraud?
If you listen to his explanation at the senate hearing, a judge with integrity would see this as evidence (not proof) and allow for discovery. This is evidence, evidence leads to discovery, discovery leads to proof, proof leads to indictment, indictment leads jury, jury leads to veredict, veredict leads to punishment, punishment leads to treason, treason leads to execution, execution leads to dead commies and globalists, dead commie globalists leads to a prosperous world.
Why would it be evidence of fraud? It's not unusual for ballots to differ between counties.
I thought we had overwhelming evidence of fraud already, so presumably we wouldn't need discovery, because we've already got the evidence, but you seem to be saying we need discovery to find the evidence? I'm not following?
Why doesn't Trump just file the overwhelming evidence we have already? I searched through the cases filed by Trump and he hasn't even filed any evidence of fraud nor has he alleged any in court? Something doesn't seem to be adding up here. Why is Trump claiming on Twitter that the evidence is enough to say he won by a lot, and that the courts are refusing to hear the evidence, yet he's not filed any of the evidence in court?
Yeah I'm going to need to see some evidence of that chief. So far I have the unsubstantiated claims of a man who's claim to fame is that he invented a cat shaped barcode reader for opening urls and a slightly wonky photo of a ballot.
This is also the man who claimed to be demonstrating a live hack of voting machines, then just told us that someone somewhere had hacked a machine and we'd have to take his word for it. Then it turns out that this 'hack' was just exchanging handshakes with the ad-hoc Wi-Fi of an EPB, a handheld device that has to communicate wirelessly with the central pollbook to confirm registration, and for which the Wi-Fi connection is well known and documented, and not subject to the restrictions of no internet access that voting machines are subject to.
If this man claims that the EPB shouldn't have a Wi-Fi connection, when it should, by well-documented design, and his 'hack' turned out to be no different than your phone scanning your neighbors Wi-Fi, why should i take his word for anything?
Short answer: No. There is no direct evidence of fraud. If there was, any one of the 50+ legal challenges would have been heard. Instead, they were all dismissed.
What do you mean? There's been loads of cases where evidence was heard, the judges considered it, but the n felt it wasn't compelling (to put it mildly) and then dismissed.
Here are some cases where the judges considered the evidence, I've also included a direct link to the judgements and quotes from the judge on the evidence.
There's lots more, but I think you get the idea. If you read the judgements it's clear the judges have heard and considered the evidence, its just they felt it was rubbish.
What gave you the idea that plaintiffs haven't been given the chance to present evidence?
That's fake news. In some instances, the cases were tossed because of procedural issues, but in many of them, they were thrown out because of a lack of evidence. There's been nearly 60 cases at this point...
It's a reference to this testimony
https://conspiracies.win/p/11RO7OJDYy/jovan-hutton-pulitzer-testimony-/c/
https://youtu.be/_PpyoYlGqBg
Watch the entire testimony. Spells out exactly how dominion failed the American people, and how refusing to release the ballot which blatantly has the code on it resulted in a 93.67% adjudication rate. Also mentions people batch scanning ballots once in adjudication caught on camera.
It's blatant at this point.
Not sure if a judge would accept that some ballots having barcodes in a different place is evidence of fraud, given that different counties need different things on their ballots. There's also absolutely no supporting evidence in the article for the claim that the barcode would cause the machine to reject the votes, let alone the claim that that would result in fraud.
Given that the evidence for fraud is overwhelming, why are we relying on vague articles like this that take a perfectly normal situation, like different counties having slightly different ballots, and extrapolating that fraud occurred? Don't we actually have some direct evidence of fraud?
If you listen to his explanation at the senate hearing, a judge with integrity would see this as evidence (not proof) and allow for discovery. This is evidence, evidence leads to discovery, discovery leads to proof, proof leads to indictment, indictment leads jury, jury leads to veredict, veredict leads to punishment, punishment leads to treason, treason leads to execution, execution leads to dead commies and globalists, dead commie globalists leads to a prosperous world.
Why would it be evidence of fraud? It's not unusual for ballots to differ between counties.
I thought we had overwhelming evidence of fraud already, so presumably we wouldn't need discovery, because we've already got the evidence, but you seem to be saying we need discovery to find the evidence? I'm not following?
Why doesn't Trump just file the overwhelming evidence we have already? I searched through the cases filed by Trump and he hasn't even filed any evidence of fraud nor has he alleged any in court? Something doesn't seem to be adding up here. Why is Trump claiming on Twitter that the evidence is enough to say he won by a lot, and that the courts are refusing to hear the evidence, yet he's not filed any of the evidence in court?
Debunking what? That Trump hasn't filed any evidence of fraud nor has he alleged any fraud in court?
Yeah I'm going to need to see some evidence of that chief. So far I have the unsubstantiated claims of a man who's claim to fame is that he invented a cat shaped barcode reader for opening urls and a slightly wonky photo of a ballot.
This is also the man who claimed to be demonstrating a live hack of voting machines, then just told us that someone somewhere had hacked a machine and we'd have to take his word for it. Then it turns out that this 'hack' was just exchanging handshakes with the ad-hoc Wi-Fi of an EPB, a handheld device that has to communicate wirelessly with the central pollbook to confirm registration, and for which the Wi-Fi connection is well known and documented, and not subject to the restrictions of no internet access that voting machines are subject to.
If this man claims that the EPB shouldn't have a Wi-Fi connection, when it should, by well-documented design, and his 'hack' turned out to be no different than your phone scanning your neighbors Wi-Fi, why should i take his word for anything?
Short answer: No. There is no direct evidence of fraud. If there was, any one of the 50+ legal challenges would have been heard. Instead, they were all dismissed.
What do you mean? There's been loads of cases where evidence was heard, the judges considered it, but the n felt it wasn't compelling (to put it mildly) and then dismissed. Here are some cases where the judges considered the evidence, I've also included a direct link to the judgements and quotes from the judge on the evidence.
Bowyer v Ducey - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Order-Granting-MTD.pdf "Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
King v Whitmer - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Preview_7405F132-B4F1-4A0A-9BB1-28CB11C48E21.pdf "Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
Trump v Benson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20201106-Opin-and-Ord.pdf "hearsay within hearsay"
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/CV2020014553-elections-m.e.-1.pdf "A theory for which no evidence exists" "the real issue" was not fraud, but "the outcome of the election"
Ward v Jackson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/AscDecisionOrder-3939735-0.pdf "the challenge fails to present any evidence of misconduct [or] illegal votes”
There's lots more, but I think you get the idea. If you read the judgements it's clear the judges have heard and considered the evidence, its just they felt it was rubbish. What gave you the idea that plaintiffs haven't been given the chance to present evidence?
That's fake news. In some instances, the cases were tossed because of procedural issues, but in many of them, they were thrown out because of a lack of evidence. There's been nearly 60 cases at this point...
The different barcodes indicate which precinct the voter is tied to, nothing more.
One has a barcode in top right, the other has no barcode.