US Army DID seize Dominion Servers in Germany

[BDinPutnam]

Yes, even those courts.

Well then I suppose the entire premise of Trump's presidency ("rah rah drain the swamp blah blah") was flawed.

 

[Defilade]

Well then I suppose the entire premise of Trump's presidency ("rah rah drain the swamp blah blah") was flawed.

Huge work in progress. Obviously.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Number 1 there is not a complete absence of fraud.

Number 2 Nothing has proven in a court room there fore nothing is proven.

Number 3 You cannot conclude anything is secure if it is a contested election .


The courts did not refuse the cases on basis of merit but on basis of legal technicalities, and procedures. Nothing can be ascertained about the validity of the claims from that .

You forgot number 4. Well... never mind.

 

[Jmac00]

Well then I suppose the entire premise of Trump's presidency ("rah rah drain the swamp blah blah") was flawed.

Im not sure it was flawed, other than the deep state/swamp is so deep, it would be impossible to drain.

some writer once said "If you wiped out every politician on Friday, and installed all new members on Monday, nothing would change, the corruption is simply to deep"

I fear, this is what Pres. Trump is up against, there are simply to many and the swamp is to deep to clean everything out

 

[masterswimmer]

Im not sure it was flawed, other than the deep state/swamp is so deep, it would be impossible to drain.

some writer once said "If you wiped out every politician on Friday, and installed all new members on Monday, nothing would change, the corruption is simply to deep"

I fear, this is what Pres. Trump is up against, there are simply to many and the swamp is to deep to clean everything out

This makes what James Comey did during his Congressional 'testimony' seem completely orchestrated. His smug and defiant delivery lends credence to the pre testimony coaching he probably received telling him that everyone questioning him is just as guilty, hiding the same crimes, and looking to avoid jail, just like him. He was being questioned by the powerful elite that were never going to hold him accountable so long as he held to the narrative that he ultimately delivered. He had zero fear of lying his ass off.

 

[tirwin1]

ya well that will depend on Harris/Pelosi fossil fuel plan, If gas prices go through the roof, who knows

I was thinking more like there will be a bounty on all white male RV owners as a result of Nashville. Lol.

 

[Blimey]

That is not remotely how it works.

Ford doesn't take a new model of truck to the HTSB and say "well, nobodys been hurt in one yet, so we can start selling it".

They have to *prove* that the car meets objective standards for safety.

What makes an election secure is the ability to *detect* fraud if it occurs.

Saying "we didn’t find any" is *not* proof that you had robust policies in place that would *allow* you to defect fraud if it occurred.

By your standards an election that had hardcore communists counting the ballots alonr and in secret and burning them before announcing the count would be the most secure possible. Nobody could *ever* prove fraud.

This is the only way it can work. Either crimes happened or they didn’t. crimes are proven in court.

Proving a complete absence of wrongdoing in this election, as in anything in life, is literally impossible.

Anyway, Sidney has been shut down by trump’s advisors. This liar is too crazy even for him now: Sidney Powell says Trump's aides have STOPPED her from contacting him

According to The New York Times, all of the ideas Powell presented during the meeting were 'shot down by every other Trump adviser present, all of whom repeatedly pointed out that she had yet to back up her claims with proof'.

Maybe he still has some people around him who are not totally off their rockers.

 

[Jmac00]

I was thinking more like there will be a bounty on all white male RV owners as a result of Nashville. Lol.

My bad, LOL I'll have the wife drive, LOL

 

[Grimscale]

At least some of, if not all of the following, are true.

1. They make accusations that they refuse to provide proof for and refuse to bring those claims to court as they know there are repercussions for lying to a judge under oath.

2. The cases they do bring and provide evidence for would not have materially affected the electoral results.

3. They're lousy lawyers.

4. They're bat shit crazy.

5. They're grifters.

Pretty much everything you stated is wrong.

1) They didn't refuse to provide it, the courts threw the lawsuit out before anything could be provided. There is a big difference. Plugging your fingers into your ears so you can't hear things is not a lack of things to hear.

2) The cases WOULD have materially affected the outcome of the "election" because they would set the precedent for other Counties in the contested States.

3) This is opinion. Your opinion, specifically, which is contrary to every Rights-loving person on this forum. But that's fine, you are "entitled" to your opinion.

4) See #3

5) Now who is batshit crazy? You are supporting the political grifters, the ones who have skimmed off the till for decades. And you call lawyers who are trying to protect our voting system grifters?

 

[spat]

Well then I suppose the entire premise of Trump's presidency ("rah rah drain the swamp blah blah") was flawed.

It's a big swamp.

He drained a lot in 4 years.

 

[spat]

This is the only way it can work. Either crimes happened or they didn’t. crimes are proven in court.

Proving a complete absence of wrongdoing in this election, as in anything in life, is literally impossible.

Anyway, Sidney has been shut down by trump’s advisors. This liar is too crazy even for him now: Sidney Powell says Trump's aides have STOPPED her from contacting him



Maybe he still has some people around him who are not totally off their rockers.

Crimes happen that aren't proven in court all the time.

In fact *most* criminals get away with their crimes *most* of the time.

Just because you didn't get a speeding ticket doesn't mean you weren't speeding.

I know people with 30rnd mags in their closet in NY. They haven't been convicted. Does that mean the mags don't exist ?

It's impossible to prove a 100% secure election, because none of them *are* 100% secure. There is *always* fraud.

What you *can* do (and what the people are entitled to, and should demand in *every* election) is an election where the level of fraud is demonstratably well below the threshold to affect the outcome.

Just like you can’t prove a drug is safe (because none of then are 100% safe) but you *can* prove that the risk is low enough that it is acceptable.

 

[spat]

This is the only way it can work. Either crimes happened or they didn’t. crimes are proven in court.

Proving a complete absence of wrongdoing in this election, as in anything in life, is literally impossible.

Anyway, Sidney has been shut down by trump’s advisors. This liar is too crazy even for him now: Sidney Powell says Trump's aides have STOPPED her from contacting him



Maybe he still has some people around him who are not totally off their rockers.

Ahh yes, the NY Times, that bastion of credibility.

They'll be dragging their Russian Collusion evidence out any day now right ?

I mean, they've only had 4 years, not a few weeks like Trump.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Pretty much everything you stated is wrong.

1) They didn't refuse to provide it, the courts threw the lawsuit out before anything could be provided. There is a big difference. Plugging your fingers into your ears so you can't hear things is not a lack of things to hear.

2) The cases WOULD have materially affected the outcome of the "election" because they would set the precedent for other Counties in the contested States.

3) This is opinion. Your opinion, specifically, which is contrary to every Rights-loving person on this forum. But that's fine, you are "entitled" to your opinion.

4) See #3

5) Now who is batshit crazy? You are supporting the political grifters, the ones who have skimmed off the till for decades. And you call lawyers who are trying to protect our voting system grifters?

For #1 I am referring to the fact that they have not once brought a claim to court that would have materially affected the outcome of the election if the claim were true.

This is an objective fact, not an opinion.

 

[spat]

For #1 I am referring to the fact that they have not once brought a claim to court that would have materially affected the outcome of the election if the claim were true.

This is an objective fact, not an opinion.

If the Texas suit had been decided in their favor Trump *would* be the one at the podium in January.

It would have invalidated the popular vote in all 4 swing states. Nobody would have 270 electoral votes, so the legislature would vote, one vote per state. That would be a Trump win.

Many of the other suits had pathways to alter the result, but I don't believe any single one would have done so.

The evidence in the Texas suit was never examined. The suit was thrown out based on "standing".

That ruling essentially says that even *if* they have iron clad proof of the fraud, the court wasn't willing to listen to it.

 

[BDinPutnam]

If the Texas suit had been decided in their favor Trump *would* be the one at the podium in January.

It would have invalidated the popular vote in all 4 swing states. Nobody would have 270 electoral votes, so the legislature would vote, one vote per state. That would be a Trump win.

Many of the other suits had pathways to alter the result, but I don't believe any single one would have done so.

The evidence in the Texas suit was never examined. The suit was thrown out based on "standing".

That ruling essentially says that even *if* they have iron clad proof of the fraud, the court wasn't willing to listen to it.

Because the case was predicated on bullshit, perhaps?

You honestly want one state (say, California or New York) to be able to disenfranchise voters in another state (say, Texas or Utah)?

Show me the constitutional mechanism under which thats even remotely plausible let alone legal.

 

[Defilade]

Because the case was predicated on bullshit, perhaps?

You honestly want one state (say, California or New York) to be able to disenfranchise voters in another state (say, Texas or Utah)?

Show me the constitutional mechanism under which thats even remotely plausible let alone legal.

An Overview of the 12th Amendment - Simplified & Explained

An Overview of the 12th Amendment - Simplified & Explained - understand civil rights and violations, obtain attorney services, forms, templates, due process, An Overview of the 12th Amendment - Simplified & Explained, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM -...

constitution.laws.com

I think Pence could throw out the battleground states votes being that they are not legal according to their own State laws. Either way, Biden won't be President.

 

[ProgSpear]

An Overview of the 12th Amendment - Simplified & Explained

An Overview of the 12th Amendment - Simplified & Explained - understand civil rights and violations, obtain attorney services, forms, templates, due process, An Overview of the 12th Amendment - Simplified & Explained, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM -...

constitution.laws.com

I think Pence could throw out the battleground states votes being that they are not legal according to their own State laws. Either way, Biden won't be President.

^^^^^^. THIS!

 

[Defilade]

Because the case was predicated on bullshit, perhaps?

You honestly want one state (say, California or New York) to be able to disenfranchise voters in another state (say, Texas or Utah)?

Show me the constitutional mechanism under which thats even remotely plausible let alone legal.

lol..BTW, You mention disenfranchised voters. That's a funny one.. What the hell do you think the Texas lawsuit was about?

 

[spat]

Because the case was predicated on bullshit, perhaps?

You honestly want one state (say, California or New York) to be able to disenfranchise voters in another state (say, Texas or Utah)?

Show me the constitutional mechanism under which thats even remotely plausible let alone legal.

If the vote in a state isn't secure, then that state's voters have already been disenfranchised.

Lets assume for a minute that Texas claims are factually valid. That, in fact, more PA citizens legitimately voted for Trump than Biden, but due to some unethical shenanigans in the executive branch Biden was going to take those electoral college votes.

In that case the PA voters have *already* been disenfranchised and Texas is trying to correct that (because they also have a stake in this).

The court ruling said that basically it's none of Texas's business how corrupt PA is.

The constitution says that the PA legislature decides how the electoral votes are apportioned. The PA legislature (like all other states) has chosen a popular vote with a series of safeguards to ensure election integrity.

Thr PA executive said "screw the legislature, we're doing it my way", and conducted an election half the country doesn't have faith in.

 

[Grimscale]

For #1 I am referring to the fact that they have not once brought a claim to court that would have materially affected the outcome of the election if the claim were true.

This is an objective fact, not an opinion.

Again, you are wrong.
The case they can bring demonstrates precedent.
For example, the Dominion voting Machines in Aterim MI are proven to change the outcome. That shows precedent that Dominion Voting Machines can affect the outcome, so therefore all Dominion Voting Machines need to be inspected and the records checked (and/or hand recounts). If enough of them are shown to have changed the outcome it could very well change the entire election outcome.

This is basic Court stuff.

 

[holdover]

For #1 I am referring to the fact that they have not once brought a claim to court that would have materially affected the outcome of the election if the claim were true.

This is an objective fact, not an opinion.

Not so sure about your ""fact"".

Court unseals details of audit on machines in Michigan’s Antrim County.

13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer ordered the report's protective order to be lifted on Monday night, allowing the details of the audit to be unsealed and released to the public.

A Michigan judge has released the bombshell report on the audit of Dominion Voting Systems, revealing that the machines and their software were "designed" to "create systemic fraud."


The report covers the forensic audit of Dominion's machines in Michigan’s Antrim County — which received national attention after it was discovered that 6,000 votes for President Donald Trump were "flipped" to Democrat Joe Biden due to an "error."

The data firm that conducted the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems determined that the machines and software in Michigan showed that they were designed to create fraud and influence election results, the report reveals.


"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,” Russell Ramsland Jr., co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, said in a preliminary report.

"The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors."

Judge Releases Dominion Audit Report: System 'Designed' to 'Create Systemic Fraud' | Neon Nettle

 

[Blimey]

Imagine a world in which somebody makes a claim so preposterous, so untethered to reality, that a court won’t even bother to hear it because on its very face it is clearly fictional.

Now imagine thousands (dare I say millions) of people so lost to critical appraisal of truth that, instead of cuing from this refusal that the case is totally without merit, they instead choose to believe this refusal is proof of court incompetence/corruption. Imagine further that the court(s) have judges nominated/appointed by the very president the lawsuit purports to help, yet that factoid merely strengthens the view of widespread corruption.

 

[spat]

Imagine a world in which somebody makes a claim so preposterous, so untethered to reality, that a court won’t even bother to hear it because on its very face it is clearly fictional.

Now imagine thousands (dare I say millions) of people so lost to critical appraisal of truth that, instead of cuing from this refusal that the case is totally without merit, they instead choose to believe this refusal is proof of court incompetence/corruption. Imagine further that the court(s) have judges nominated/appointed by the very president the lawsuit purports to help, yet that factoid merely strengthens the view of widespread corruption.

Why do you misrepresent the reasons these cases have been dismissed ?

For instance the big one from Texas was dismissed for standing. The court literally ruled that it it doesn't matter how much fraud occurred in those swing states, or how much evidence there was to prove it, they were going to drop the case anyway.

Most of the rulings have actively avoided any suggestion that the claims are untrue. They have relied on legal maneuvers and technicalities to avoid having to even look at the evidence.

What's that tell you ?

 

[holdover]

Its a fact they were not thrown on thier merits but on legal procedures. Hes in complete denial of reality

 

[Phazer]

You mean the courts with Judges that Trump himself appointed?

Those courts?

Yes.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Why do you misrepresent the reasons these cases have been dismissed ?

For instance the big one from Texas was dismissed for standing. The court literally ruled that it it doesn't matter how much fraud occurred in those swing states, or how much evidence there was to prove it, they were going to drop the case anyway.

Most of the rulings have actively avoided any suggestion that the claims are untrue. They have relied on legal maneuvers and technicalities to avoid having to even look at the evidence.

What's that tell you ?

Read the PA circuit Court ruling and tell me they've been even trying to bring any "facts" to court.

I believe the phrase was something along the lines of "you need to have both allegations, and evidence to support them. Here we have NEITHER."

 

[Blimey]

Why do you misrepresent the reasons these cases have been dismissed ?

For instance the big one from Texas was dismissed for standing. The court literally ruled that it it doesn't matter how much fraud occurred in those swing states, or how much evidence there was to prove it, they were going to drop the case anyway.

Most of the rulings have actively avoided any suggestion that the claims are untrue. They have relied on legal maneuvers and technicalities to avoid having to even look at the evidence.

What's that tell you ?

Some cases judges have specifically kicked on their ass as total garbage. And if another isn’t seen because an attorney is too incompetent to file properly (“elite strike force”) That should tell you something.

You know what these cases really look like: go on YouTube and watch some sovereign citizens arguing to judges.

 

[spat]

Some cases judges have specifically kicked on their ass as total garbage. And if another isn’t seen because an attorney is too incompetent to file properly (“elite strike force”) That should tell you something.

You know what these cases really look like: go on YouTube and watch some sovereign citizens arguing to judges.

Yes, because half the state attorneys general in the country frequently sign on to support cases with no merit.

 

[Robin]

 

[Robin]

Auditing the Georgia vote is probably no longer possible.
Robin