BBC News - FBI says Iran and Russia have US voter information
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54640405
I wonder how they acquired that.. hmmmm....
Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54640405
I wonder how they acquired that.. hmmmm....
There was evidence. An ambassador overhead something in a bar somewhere in europe, relayed it back to the FBI, and they issued a code red go go go code red, launched a three year tax payer funded investigation into it. As you do.
I would only defend a case where the evidence is in my favour.
But I actually know what constitutes evidence.
I've had a case where I had no evidence, because the court didn't bother printing it and handing it to the judge before the hearing. The only thing he had was the other parties evidence. I won.
No mate - I believe the Mueller report established that there were “multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our [the US] election”.
Where the conjecture is - is how much the interference affected the final result.
Remind me again..., what did Killary actually do - what was she found guilty of?
Not that any of that matters now because.. no time machine - but you’d have to be pretty special to think the hatchet job on Killary (regardless of whether you think she’s a monster or not) - which the Russians facilitated, didn’t impact the election negatively.
You can’t really know, unless you hunt down those voters that “may have” changed their mind in key swings states late on and how that impacted the vote,
I’d imagine Trump would have been banging on about voter fraud 4 years ago if he’s lost and would have never mentioned it once if his Hunter Biden hatchet job had returned the same result this time round.
The same will apply this time round- Trump will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was enough voter fraud to negate the result- but that doesn’t matter and that’s not the point of why Trump’s flinging shit around.
You know it too.
It's not reasonable doubt, that's for Barr in criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings, balance of probabilities, just like the FA.
What information about the voters do they have?
You’re a legend my friend. But this is absolutely not how vote counting technology works. At all.
Apparently Trump turned up late to the remembrance service yesterday then saluted when he should have put his hand on his chest (only military or veterans should salute). I reckon a lot in the military don't like him.
He's done many gaffes like that.
It's the beginning of the propoganda that leads to military action in Iran.
Actually psychologists say that in most cases whoever makes the first statement / comment on a subject tends to be regarded as being the most credible to their audience and after that it requires a retraction, or lots of evidence to the contrary, to shift public opinion.
Weird but true.
There doesnt seem to be any evidence in this case, at least they cant seem to support any of their claims. Which is all very handy when sending in loads of batshit crazt affidavits that they want the rest of the World to believe.
For the third time. In a court of law when you provide an affidavit you are swearing on the holy bible under penalty of perjury that your testimony is the truth. The court accepts this as evidence. Trying to contest that as a lie is damned near impossible way to defend a case. Unless you have medical evidence which diagnoses the witness as mentally ill, or you have rock solid irrefutable documentary evidence proving the witness is lying about what they saw, then their testimony is taken as a fact, not an allegation, not an opinion, not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact.
If the witness says they were asked to backdate ballots. Then it's a legal fact. You now need to explain why that is a normal procedure, or explain that it was just an isolated incident, or explain they misheard it and put them through a tough cross examination to make them doubt their own memory. Something. Simply saying it's made up is not a legal defence. Saying there is no other evidence to prove it, is also not a legal defence. The affidavit is proof.
So how are the court cases going then?
For the second time. The court cases you're reading about on CNN were submitted without affidavits, hence without any evidence which the court can accept. You understand it takes time to track down witnesses, vet them, depose them, draw up an affidavit, and then file lawsuits? The court cases now, after the lawyers have had time to gather evidence, are only getting filed now.
Didn't McEnany say she has 25 pages of affidavits whilst waving around her (in progress of being updated) CV ?
I look forward to reading about how these lawsuits are going. Any day now.
I think she said 253 pages. I struggle to maintain focus on what she is saying.
The motion to dismiss the sharpie case in Arizona (one of the obviously weak sauce pot shot lawsuits) says that the "full six days" between the election and the lawsuit is an unreasonable delay and prejudices the defence. Six days. Well I guess so, they all believe god made everything in less time than that, so it is a very long time from a certain point of view.
Looking forward to reading about all the great wins Trump will have in these legal cases.
With all the "evidence" you have produced in this thread that shouldnt be a problem.
You'll be too busy reading made up transfer rumours on twitter
Presumably because there's no way of tracking the ballots and producing the crucial evidence that would prove or disprove the case.
I mean if I was setting up an election to be rigged that's how I'd do it and exactly how I'd defend the case. There's no evidence because we made sure there can't be any !
Thanks for the explanation re affidavit. So perfectly sane person A signs an Affidavit to say they say ballots being ripped open and burnt and cos they swore on the bible it's now equally gospel truth and legal fact. If correct appreciate the points re 'evidence' then.
Suppose now up to the lawyers from where? Biden/Harris or the state reps to cross examine and challenge the witness?
Exactly. So you have to question how far they were, how do they know it was ballots, it could just be scrap paper, it was dark in the middle of the night so how could they see what it was, and so forth. You can't just put them on the stand and accuse them of lying about the whole thing.
The lawyers will be representing the state's board of electors (who are the ones being sued in the cases).
Yes. The Arizona one is against Hobbs (she's the secretary of state). Not sure how their administrative bodies are organised over there. There'll be some sort of election board / commission in charge of the counting / vote rigging. They can sue the individual person in charge of that or else sue the board itself. Doesn't make a big difference if any.
Similar threads
