Thud (to infinity) (1 Viewer)

[AccessBlaster]

So you are saying that as of now there is no proof, but it will be forthcoming. The difference is that with Trump, thaer is actual evidence.

What I am saying is there is way more evidence against the Biden Crime family than there is against Trump. But the media isn't interested.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I just think there is a boxcar load of evidence that he committed crimes while in office

This is your opinion. Please specify what evidence you think exists for what specific crimes. You do realize don't you that our justice system doesn't work the way Stalin's did. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" isn't our way or at least it wasn't until TDS took over.

And you have proof of that.

the evidence is out there if you choose to review it. It is contained in emails found on Hunter's laptop that lead to the offshore accounts as well as bank records of money transfers from foreign nationals into bank accounts controlled by the many LLCs and then from the LLCs to the members of the Biden family. Pretty convincing chain. What do you suppose the wives of Joe and his brother do to earn money from the foreign nationals? How about his granddaughter? Hunter promised to not take half her money when she joined the money laundering chain, like "POPS" did with him. So, Hunter is complaining in an email to his daughter that his father takes half of his money???? I guess why that is why Hunter pays a half million dollars a year to Joe to rent a house he doesn't live in.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So you are saying that as of now there is no proof, but it will be forthcoming. The difference is that with Trump, thaer is actual evidence.

Is this like the evidence that Adam Schiff told the gullible public he had every day for three years but as of today has never produced any of it publically. Nor did he give any of it to any of the commissions that were investigating this non-crime!!!! The Constitution specifically allows members of congress to lie while speaking on the floor but doesn't say anything about lying to the public on national TV daily when he knew for a fact there was no evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia but there actually was evidence that Hillary was colluding with Russia and that is why Hillary and her campaign were fined thousands of dollars for their role in the "Russia Collusion Hoax" but nothing happened to Trump because he didn't do anything.

How many times do they have to lie to you before you open your eyes?

There is evidence of election interference of many types, in many places. There are hours of videos showing it. People taking ballots out of a scanner and feeding them through again,over and over and over again. Commercial shredding trucks outside of ballot counting places shredding the envelopes the day after the election!!! Election material is supposed to be kept for a minimum of two years but by shredding all the envelopes, you can't count the ballots and then count the envelopes and see the discrepancy. How about the videos of people going over and over again to ballot drop boxes, each time with multiple ballots. How about video of them removing their surgical gloves and throwing them in the trash after they deposit the ballots? I get that somehow you might convince yourself that this behavior is "normal" but when the same person comes multiple times in the middle of the night??? Where are the ballots coming from? And that's just the stuff you can see with your eyes. There's a whole lot of technical stuff that only programmers would understand, like all of the ballots from primarily Republican precincts being printed slightly off so that the OCR can't properly register the ballot so the ballot gets rejected and must be entered by hand. How about the affidavits from counting workers reporting that they were scanning ballots that had never been folded?? If they didn't come in a proper envelope then they should never have been counted. But they were. This is why the envelopes had to be shredded so the two counts couldn't be reconciled.

The scary thing is that swinging~ 40,000 votes in the right places, controlled the election. This was the six counting facilities that simply stopped counting around 10 PM on election night. When in your lifetime in any Presidential election did the counting workers simply call it a night and close up shop and go home at 10 PM. Apparently no one warned the talking heads that this might happen. They were mystified too. So, we go to bed at night with Trump having a substantial lead and when we woke up in the morning Biden is now leading in the swing districts where it mattered. My guess is they knew that despite all their other efforts, Trump was still going to win so they needed the time to produce more ballots or at least get the pole watchers to go home while they came back and did their scanner trick.

 

[jpl458]

Is this like the evidence that Adam Schiff told the gullible public he had every day for three years but as of today has never produced any of it publically. Nor did he give any of it to any of the commissions that were investigating this non-crime!!!! The Constitution specifically allows members of congress to lie while speaking on the floor but doesn't say anything about lying to the public on national TV daily when he knew for a fact there was no evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia but there actually was evidence that Hillary was colluding with Russia and that is why Hillary and her campaign were fined thousands of dollars for their role in the "Russia Collusion Hoax" but nothing happened to Trump because he didn't do anything.

How many times do they have to lie to you before you open your eyes?

There is evidence of election interference of many types, in many places. There are hours of videos showing it. People taking ballots out of a scanner and feeding them through again,over and over and over again. Commercial shredding trucks outside of ballot counting places shredding the envelopes the day after the election!!! Election material is supposed to be kept for a minimum of two years but by shredding all the envelopes, you can't count the ballots and then count the envelopes and see the discrepancy. How about the videos of people going over and over again to ballot drop boxes, each time with multiple ballots. How about video of them removing their surgical gloves and throwing them in the trash after they deposit the ballots? I get that somehow you might convince yourself that this behavior is "normal" but when the same person comes multiple times in the middle of the night??? Where are the ballots coming from? And that's just the stuff you can see with your eyes. There's a whole lot of technical stuff that only programmers would understand, like all of the ballots from primarily Republican precincts being printed slightly off so that the OCR can't properly register the ballot so the ballot gets rejected and must be entered by hand. How about the affidavits from counting workers reporting that they were scanning ballots that had never been folded?? If they didn't come in a proper envelope then they should never have been counted. But they were. This is why the envelopes had to be shredded so the two counts couldn't be reconciled.

The scary thing is that swinging~ 40,000 votes in the right places, controlled the election. This was the six counting facilities that simply stopped counting around 10 PM on election night. When in your lifetime in any Presidential election did the counting workers simply call it a night and close up shop and go home at 10 PM. Apparently no one warned the talking heads that this might happen. They were mystified too. So, we go to bed at night with Trump having a substantial lead and when we woke up in the morning Biden is now leading in the swing districts where it mattered. My guess is they knew that despite all their other efforts, Trump was still going to win so they needed the time to produce more ballots or at least get the pole watchers to go home while they came back and did their scanner trick.

If there is all this evidence, then why were all the lawsuits thrown out of court, around 60 as I remember. I only care about the things he did that are against national security and against the law. I really don't care if he lies about his weight or height. A lot of the people close to him told him he lost. But he told Meadows to not tell anyone that he lost. He lost. That's the long and short of it.

 

[moke123]

Here's your evidence.
She saw it all.
She saw dead people vote.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716932587351167072

 

[AccessBlaster]

Grassley: FBI Received 'Criminal Information' From Over 40 Confidential Sources on Biden Family - FBI Washington Field Office Shut Down Reporting! | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

On Wednesday, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) revealed that the FBI received ‘criminal information’ from over 40 confidential human sources on Joe, Hunter, and James Biden – dating back to Joe Biden’s time as Vice President.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[GaP42]

Here's your evidence.
She saw it all.
She saw dead people vote.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716932587351167072

Which did not stand up in court.
Claims, not factual evidence, that do not stack up.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/poli...e-rudy-giuliani-witness-michigan-ebof-vpx.cnn

Not that the video itself or that it provides real details, but it does not take much to find it.

 

[jpl458]

Which did not stand up in court.
Claims, not factual evidence, that do not stack up.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/poli...e-rudy-giuliani-witness-michigan-ebof-vpx.cnn

Not that the video itself or that it provides real details, but it does not take much to find it.

Not physical evidence.

 

[Pat Hartman]

then why were all the lawsuits thrown out of court, around 60 as I remember

There is a website (https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm) that lists all the lawsuits (92) including who brought them and their current status. You will find that of the lawsuits that were dismissed, they were dismissed for reasons not having to do with evidence. In fact, the point of dismissing the lawsuit up front is that none of the evidence is ever made public. The dismissals are for reasons like "standing" - the person bringing the suit wasn't injured by the crime or "timing" - the suit needed to be brought before something happened or after it happened. 45 were dismissed without any evidence being heard. Of the 31 lawsuits that have so far been decided on the merits, the Trump side won 23 of them. The rest are still active.

Since no judge is going to overturn a Presidential election (which is pretty much why they dismissed most cases so that the evidence could not be heard), the verdicts don't get much press and the press they do get is designed specifically to mislead you. Plus the press wouldn't consider them news unless Trump's side lost.

 

[moke123]

Pat, some advice from your favorite fact checker. Look at who's behind the websites.

February 5, 2021

Droz, identified as “physicist, North Carolina,” was the only signatory on a two-page Feb. 5, 2021 report claiming that Trump, who lost 61 of the 62 lawsuits24 he and his allies filed seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election, had “WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits.” His report was cited by news sites including Christianity Daily25 and the Epoch Times.26

“The article was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed,” PolitiFact reported. Referring to an Epoch Times article that had used Droz’s 2-page “report” to allege that Trump “won two-thirds of election lawsuits where the merits [were] considered,” PolitiFact wrote, “That claim is literally not true.”27

“Trump and his allies have won one lawsuit related to the results of the 2020 election, and that case did not prove that widespread voter fraud affected the outcome,” PolitiFact wrote. “Judges across the political spectrum have rejected dozens of other cases filed after Nov. 3 that sought to overturn the election. Just because a case is dismissed on procedural grounds does not mean it wasn’t duly considered.”

 

[Pat Hartman]

@moke123 Did you just rely on your darling liars at Politi"fact" or did you follow any of the links in the link I posted? Do you think that the Stanford.edu site is lying to us? That is where the dispositions come from. EACH lawsuit has a citation back to the Stanford.edu site that logs these things and records the outcomes. The only thing I would question about the list is - have more lawsuits been filed that are not on the list since this is a summary of what is on the "big" list maintained by Stanford.

A typical disposition for the cases that were dismissed is:

11/06/2020: Order/Ruling, The judge dismissed the case stating that, “At this point, the essence of the count is completed, and the relief is completely unavailable.”

That means that the judge doesn't care. He is not overturning a Presidential election PERIOD so there is no point in hearing the case. This ruling was made FOUR days after the election. How do you know if there was cheating BEFORE an election? This lawsuit, if filed prior to an election would be laughed out of court. How could you possibly know that there would be cheating when the election hadn't happened yet? If you can't have a hearing AFTER an election that is questionable and present actual evidence, then the cheaters always win because the judiciary won't overrule the results regardless of what evidence might be offered!! Really? When EXACTLY should a suit that questions the veracity of an election be filed? You can't file it before, that's just silly. And apparently, you can't file it after because that might result in overturning an election???

You are listening to talking points and believing ONE source which is known to be biased.

Not physical evidence.

He said, she said. No one took the time to investigate the claim. How do you know who is telling the truth? Would you sign a complaint like this which if proven to be false would subject you to criminal prosecution? Why hasn't the woman been prosecuted if she's lying under oath? Because that would open the case up for fact finding and the government would be forced to make the data public. They can't afford to do that so she and all the others were not prosecuted.

If nothing else, you should question the vehemence with which the wagons were circled around the voting machine companies to PREVENT actual audits. Why did that happen? If the elections were clean, the audits would show that. But, in no case that I know of were the voting machines sequestered and held so that they could be forensically audited. Dominion and the election commissions in each of the jurisdictions had non-restricted access to the machines and we know for a fact, that in at least one instance, the machines were wiped clean before they could be audited. Why the full court press to prevent any forensic audit of the voting machines? What were they afraid would be found?

If any of the disbelievers are honest people, you should think long and hard about that question. What were they afraid would be found if they allowed the machines to be sequestered and the audit proceed? I'm having trouble myself believing that the corruption included Dominion or any other of the tabulating machine companies. But the more insistent they all became on fighting the audit request, the more I question why. There is absolutely no evidence that would be left at this point. It was all gone as soon as the audits were requested so there is no point at this time in any audit of the voting machines.

But there are still videos and other physical evidence that has never been considered by a court. And you know what, no matter which side wins in 2024, there will be accusations of cheating. The difference will be that if Trump happens to win, the left will unleash the dogs of Antifa and BLM to burn down American cities like they did in 2020.

 

[AccessBlaster]

interesting bedfellows

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208409526/trump-gag-order-first-amendment

 

[moke123]

Did you read the decision?

However, the day-to-day operation of an absent voter counting board is controlled by the pertinent city or township clerk. See MCL 168.764d. The complaint does not allege that the Secretary of State was a party to or had knowledge of, the alleged exclusion of plaintiff Ostegren from the unnamed absent voter counting board.

Not only can the relief requested not issue against the Secretary of State, who is the only named defendant in this action, but the factual record does not support the relief requested. As a result, plaintiffs are unable to show a likelihood of success on the merits.

You have to sue the right parties.

This ruling was made FOUR days after the election.

Moreover, even if the requested relief could issue against the Secretary of State, the Court notes that the complaint and emergency motion were not filed until approximately 4:00 p.m. on November 4, 2020—despite being announced to various media outlets much earlier in the day. By the time this action was filed, the votes had largely been counted, and the counting is now complete.

The Hearing and oral decision was held 11/5. The written decision was issued the following day.

@moke123 Did you just rely on your darling liars at Politi"fact" or did you follow any of the links in the link I posted?

Actually Pat the first thing I do is look at the website and look for certain things. One being who is behind it. Look for yourself. There is no About page, or indication of the group behind it. The only indication was an email address link to "email physicist John Droz, Jr."
When you google him a ton of stuff comes up. He's an alleged Climate Scientist and activist.

I think you missed the point that he is the only one who says trump “WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits.” Other right wing outlets then ran with it.

I'm familiar with, and did look at, the links at the bottom of your page. They don't say trump won. I always look at the links you post, mainly to see where you get this stuff.

 

[moke123]

He said, she said. No one took the time to investigate the claim. How do you know who is telling the truth? Would you sign a complaint like this which if proven to be false would subject you to criminal prosecution? Why hasn't the woman been prosecuted if she's lying under oath?

You mean this woman, Mellissa Carone, in her mugshot?

She didn't sign any complaint, and she testified unsworn. Can't charge her.

surrounding her unsworn testimony on things she claimed to witness while working as a temp IT contractor for Dominion Voting Systems in that state.

Star Giuliani Witness Mellissa Carone Was Recently On Probation Because of Raunchy Recording

The original charges were first-degree obscenity and using a computer to commit a crime. The obscenity count was reduced; the other was dismissed.

lawandcrime.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I think you missed the point that he is the only one who says trump “WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits.” Other right wing outlets then ran with it.

That's because he actually counted the results from the Stanford.edu site which the list extracts the relevant cases from. You too can look at the results and count them.

She didn't sign any complaint, and she testified unsworn. Can't charge her.

She thinks she did. So did a bunch of others who reported irregularities in counting. None of them have been charged either and all those anti-Trump prosecutors are hot to trot to prosecute if you support Trump. Why have they not conducted a crusade against these folks? Because their case can't survive discovery

I'm familiar with, and did look at, the links at the bottom of your page. They don't say trump won. I always look at the links you post, mainly to see where you get this stuff.

This website is a summary of data from the Stanford.edu site. Each reference links to that site so you can see the actual ruling. I guess we can't trust Stanford either.

 

[moke123]

You too can look at the results and count them.

I read a couple, maybe you should too. In the case you cited the evidence consisted of a picture of a handwritten yellow sticky note which was allegedly handed to a woman by an unknown person while counting votes. I know you have no clue as to the rules of evidence but I'll assure you that doesn't pass muster. Funny how none of the other people with her saw it .

Why have they not conducted a crusade against these folks? Because their case can't survive discovery

Can't charge them for being stupid and gullible. What discovery Pat? The Burden falls on the plaintiff. What discovery do they have? That's why so many of the cases failed. No Evidence.

 

[Pat Hartman]

That's why so many of the cases failed. No Evidence.

No, they didn't "fail". They were not heard so the evidence was never presented. Half of the cases in the list were dismissed without any evidence being presented. The judge decided there was no case because of "standing" or something procedural like he thought the affidavit was too vague. A number of the arguments came down to - you can't file after the election because we're not going to overturn it and you can't file before the election because nothing bad has happened yet. Of those that were actually heard, the Trump side won most of them. The rest are still grinding through the process or were withdrawn.

 

[jpl458]

@moke123 Did you just rely on your darling liars at Politi"fact" or did you follow any of the links in the link I posted? Do you think that the Stanford.edu site is lying to us? That is where the dispositions come from. EACH lawsuit has a citation back to the Stanford.edu site that logs these things and records the outcomes. The only thing I would question about the list is - have more lawsuits been filed that are not on the list since this is a summary of what is on the "big" list maintained by Stanford.

A typical disposition for the cases that were dismissed is:

That means that the judge doesn't care. He is not overturning a Presidential election PERIOD so there is no point in hearing the case. This ruling was made FOUR days after the election. How do you know if there was cheating BEFORE an election? This lawsuit, if filed prior to an election would be laughed out of court. How could you possibly know that there would be cheating when the election hadn't happened yet? If you can't have a hearing AFTER an election that is questionable and present actual evidence, then the cheaters always win because the judiciary won't overrule the results regardless of what evidence might be offered!! Really? When EXACTLY should a suit that questions the veracity of an election be filed? You can't file it before, that's just silly. And apparently, you can't file it after because that might result in overturning an election???

You are listening to talking points and believing ONE source which is known to be biased.

He said, she said. No one took the time to investigate the claim. How do you know who is telling the truth? Would you sign a complaint like this which if proven to be false would subject you to criminal prosecution? Why hasn't the woman been prosecuted if she's lying under oath? Because that would open the case up for fact finding and the government would be forced to make the data public. They can't afford to do that so she and all the others were not prosecuted.

If nothing else, you should question the vehemence with which the wagons were circled around the voting machine companies to PREVENT actual audits. Why did that happen? If the elections were clean, the audits would show that. But, in no case that I know of were the voting machines sequestered and held so that they could be forensically audited. Dominion and the election commissions in each of the jurisdictions had non-restricted access to the machines and we know for a fact, that in at least one instance, the machines were wiped clean before they could be audited. Why the full court press to prevent any forensic audit of the voting machines? What were they afraid would be found?

If any of the disbelievers are honest people, you should think long and hard about that question. What were they afraid would be found if they allowed the machines to be sequestered and the audit proceed? I'm having trouble myself believing that the corruption included Dominion or any other of the tabulating machine companies. But the more insistent they all became on fighting the audit request, the more I question why. There is absolutely no evidence that would be left at this point. It was all gone as soon as the audits were requested so there is no point at this time in any audit of the voting machines.

But there are still videos and other physical evidence that has never been considered by a court. And you know what, no matter which side wins in 2024, there will be accusations of cheating. The difference will be that if Trump happens to win, the left will unleash the dogs of Antifa and BLM to burn down American cities like they did in 2020.

A whole lot of people around Trump told him that he lost. Meadows, his own attorney general who conducted an investigation. Plus there were 2 different firms hired by Trump that couldn't find any thing wrong. As I said before, in a court of law there has not been one scintilla of evidence that Trump won. But, I suppose they are all closet liberals.

 

[moke123]

A whole lot of people around Trump told him that he lost. Meadows, his own attorney general who conducted an investigation. Plus there were 2 different firms hired by Trump that couldn't find any thing wrong. As I said before, in a court of law there has not been one scintilla of evidence that Trump won. But, I suppose they are all closet liberals.

Don't leave out all the state audits. Georgia even hired an outside company to audit their machines.

 

[jpl458]

Don't leave out all the state audits. Georgia even hired an outside company to audit their machines.

Thanks Moke