-9
newuserfromreddit -9 points ago +1 / -10

and facilitated 1/6

Aaaaand there’s where you jump into a la-la land that’s not even supported by your preceding bullet points.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

I don’t think you understand how law works my guy

by pkvi
-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

You’re right, that did all happen! But your examples had proof. Y’know, evidence?

The elections have been audited. They’ve been audited again. In one state, we’re on a third audit — because we just can’t find proof of that darn voter fraud that is supposedly so clear. All we seem to be able to garner is some handwritten affidavits, typo-ridden lawsuits, and half-baked conspiracy theories about bamboo, UV ink, and Chyna.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

Or, y’know, the right wing’s relentless hard-on for law enforcement and the military for the last century has led those organizations to composed of a disproportionate number of people with right-wing extremist beliefs.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

Why? Because of this thread. Never thought I’d see so many supposed conspiracy theorists defending Putin’s word as gospel, but here we are.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

The fact that so many people here can’t even believe Putin would have an ulterior motive speaks volumes to how little of a conspiracy forum this is.

by pkvi
-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +2 / -5

to which they have since been demonstrated to have been wrong

Wanna show me another audit that said the first audit is wrong? Or is this the typical case where you just drop the “here’s the evidence” link and run.

That site legitimately considers a handwritten affidavit about being called a “Karen” while in line to vote as evidence of voter fraud, by the way.

by pkvi
-4
newuserfromreddit -4 points ago +1 / -5

I take your implication is that an audit is wrong if it doesn’t find voter fraud?

That’s not the point of an audit my guy.

by pkvi
-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +1 / -4

The source your citing reported a year later, after an audit, that this wasn’t the result of voter fraud.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/09/state-audit-finds-questionable-votes-detroit/97696820/

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

Oh god no, I hate cops. I just know they’re not dumb enough to make such a senselessly stupid mistake like using “co-conspirator” instead of “person.”

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +4 / -5

Contrary to popular belief, the DOJ and FBI are separate entities. It would be the DOJ breaking the law, as they filed the pleadings, not the FBI.

More so, whether or not undercover agents were involved on January 6th is exculpatory material that the DOJ has to turn over in pre-trial discovery. Failure to do so would not only probably render every conviction on these facts reversible, but also expose the government to massive civil liability.

Even more so, if undercover agents were indeed involved, the DOJ could effectively dodge this entire civil liability / conviction integrity issue just by saying they were "unindicted persons" — which would have the same result as these pleadings.

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +3 / -6

All Carlson said was that some of the “unindicted co-conspirators” (as named in government pleadings) were not charged because they were undercover agents.

Undercover agents legally cannot be named as unindicted co-conspirators in a court pleading by the government, because an undercover agent acting in their official capacity is not committing the crime of conspiracy. Naming them would be perjury.

Hence, the “unindicted co-conspirators” literally cannot be undercover agents.

-5
newuserfromreddit -5 points ago +1 / -6

An “unindicted co-conspirators” named in the case literally cannot be federal operatives because they cannot commit the crime of conspiracy.

-5
newuserfromreddit -5 points ago +1 / -6

Tucker Carlson said some “co-conspirators” (as they were named in government pleadings) were not charged because they were undercover agents.

Undercover agents legally cannot be named as unindicted co-conspirators in a court pleading by the government, because an undercover agent acting in their official capacity is not committing the crime of conspiracy. Naming them would be perjury.

Hence, the “unindicted co-conspirators” literally cannot be undercover agents.

Twitter just phrased the explanation like shit.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

The results were never suspended.

Bro do you seriously not know what an “attempt” means?

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

I need you to suspend the results while a proper investigation is undertaken.

Right. That's illegal. Suspending a national election to keep yourself in office is private gain, and probably some other crimes that I don't have the time to run through Westlaw. A crime doesn't become legal just because I couch my actions in an "I have reasons to believe" statement.

There's honestly some things that I never thought I would have to explain, but you've proven me wrong.

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +1 / -4

Yeah, you can say that about most of the predictions on this site. Check some of my comment history back around Nov./Dec.

The U.S. still hasn’t collapsed lol

-3
newuserfromreddit -3 points ago +1 / -4

Asking is, by definition in fact and law, an attempt to do something. Asking an undercover cop for drugs is attempt. Asking a hitman to kill your husband is attempt. Asking your A.G. to block the U.S. election is attempt.

That’s what I mean by your doing mental gymnastics.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

Bro the emails are tabulated on pages 2-3. The “internal” mark is for the house oversight committee. The documents detailing voter fraud are attachments to the emails.

Read, my dude.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›