Yeah, I've spent so much time pointing it out whenever someone raises 'muh affadavits' that I thought I'd just stick it in my username to help 'em out.
Ah yes, the POTUS asking that the votes are 'recalculated' is all really legal and really cool. And suggesting that the SOS does this, not because the evidence says so, but because it will hurt his political career if he doesn't is also really legal and really cool. And suing because this perfectly ordinary call was released, is just more evidence that it was all really legal and really cool.
Nothing to see here, absolutely no conspiracy from the POTUS, the only conspiracy is how the media have the absolute cheek to directly quote his words and use them against him, how dare they. Don't they know that 'true' news bends over backwards and contorts itself into knots trying to justify the recorded words in plain English of the president.
Can we also all just take a minute to admire how the head mod of a god damn conspiracy forum is currently running interference to deflect from the damning and irrefutable words of the leader of the fucking government. It would be laughable if it wasn't so shameful.
Axo's the worst offender, not only does she permaban any dissenting opinion, she also manipulates the algo by constantly deleting and reposting until she gets the result she wants.
https://openmodlogs.xyz/?subreddit=conspiracy&mod=axolotl_peyotl&action=banuser
Yeah the problem is one side has common sense and understands that saliva contains a viral load, and physics says that if I place a cloth over my mouth the range of spread of my saliva will be reduced, and hence the spread of the virus will be reduced. The other side think that putting a bit of cloth over your mouth is equivalent to a fascist dictator starting a global conflict and murdering millions of undesirables. That's quite a casm in belief that'll take a bit more than a meme to overcome.
Yeah you should check out the mod logs for r/conspiracy, you get censored and permabanned for questioning the narrative, on a conspiracy sub no less. Good job we don't have the same mods here otherwise reddit's bullshit would follow us, oh wait...
It's actually pretty glorious in clown world, the electors have voted for Biden and the orange man is kicking and screaming but ultimately there's nothing he can do, everything from this point is purely ceremonial.
A few senators will try to curry your future vote by objecting, and no doubt you'll be gullible enough to fall for it, but even they've come out and said they're not naive and know it will fail. The only question is whether you're naive enough to believe it will succeed?
How's the weather in the land of unicorns and fairies?
Are you disputing that the recounts matched the original tally or are you just deflecting because the facts are inconvenient to your narrative?
Can you show me a single case where a pedophile has been convicted on witness testimony alone, absent any physical evidence of a crime? Or what about the witnesses that claim Trump raped them, is that enough for you to conclude Trump is a rapist? Of course it isn't, it's just hearsay.
The rules are quite clear, eye witness testimony can only be used to identify the person on trial as the person who commited the alleged offence, it cannot be relied on to allege an offence. I can stand in court and say that I saw you murder the person who's body was discovered with a gunshot wound (though it's still very unlikely that that would be enough to convict). I can't however stand in court and say I saw you murder someone when there's no body or other physical evidence to suggest a murder took place, because that's just inadmissable hearsay.
That's the exact problem the testimony faces in these cases, there's no physical evidence of fraud, people have alleged it, and the reports have suggested it's theoretically possible, but without some physical evidence, it's all conjecture and hearsay and therefore inadmissable.
These witness admissibility rules have existed for centuries, it only seems to be Trump supporters that have collective amnesia over their existance
Why would witness testimony help? It would have the same fundamental hearsay inadmissability as the affidavits in that none of the claims of the witnesses are substantiated by physical evidence.
If I signed an affadavit saying you murdered someone, yet there was no name of the victim and no body and no other physical evidence of my allegation, do you think the judge should still allow a full hearing and put you on trial for murder? Or what about the multiple signed affadavits from women claiming Trump raped them, do you think a judge should allow full discovery and put Trump on trial for rape based solely on those claims?
That's not how courts have ever worked, you need specific evidence, especially to allege fraud, not the 'he said she said' allegations presented in this case. Why is it that Trump supporters want to throw out centuries of precedent and evidential rules and procedures because Trump can't seem to present evidence correctly? Especially as the evidence for fraud is apparently overwhelming, why aren't they submitting some of this overwhelming evidence rather than the vague inadmissable hearsay that they seem to be submitting instead?
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?
Because the evidence presented failed to plausibly establish the allegations, and hence had no reasonable chance of succeeding at discovery, as per the judgement.
That's on the lawyers making the case, if the evidence is overwhelming they should have no problem filing something to convince a judge to take it further, instead they keep filing procedurally invalid claims based on largely inadmissable hearsay and conjecture. They've been given a fair shot at making a case, and the judges have been utterly unconvinced by the arguments and the evidence to back them up.
At some point youve got to question what the lawyers are up to, because they must know that these cases are all DOA, yet they file them anyway. Almost like it's all just for show, and somebody's taking donations for the tickets...
Read page 23 - 27 of that same judgement. It goes into great detail on the evidence presented, and why it utterly fails to meet the standard required for fraud. Why did you think they hadn't been able to present the evidence?
Read page 23 - 27 of that same judgement. It goes into great detail on the evidence presented, and why it utterly fails to meet the standard required for fraud. Why did you think they hadn't been able to present the evidence?
It actually says
"There are multiple independent grounds upon which to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and the Court will therefore only briefly addresses those Motions here."
The judge then goes on to summarize the evidence when he says
"These insurmountable legal hurdles are exacerbated by insufficiently plead allegations of fraud, rendered implausible by the multiple inadmissible affidavits, declarations, and expert reports upon which their Complaint relies."
And then in conclusion says
"Not only have Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with factual support for their extraordinary claims, but they have wholly failed to establish that they have standing for the Court to consider them. Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court."
Judges can't help it if Trump can't seem to file a case correctly, but they've still heard the evidence and given a pretty damning assessment of it.
If you aren't interested in reading these cases for yourself, and seeing the courts undeniable weighing of the merits of thr evidence, then I'm not sure you're actually interested in the truth, you're just after confirmation for what you want to be true.
There's been loads of cases where the evidence was presented and then dismissed on its merits, heres a few to get you started, though there's lots more.
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”
Who told you that they'd refused to hear the evidence and what steps did you take to verify if that was accurate?
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?
Debunking what? That Trump hasn't filed any evidence of fraud nor has he alleged any fraud in court?
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?
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?
Though apparently I can't spell affidavit, luckily most of them can't either.