Arizona Ballots Make Stop at Runbeck Printing Company to Scan Ballot Envelopes ...

a reply to: Annee

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Nope. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on government.

Preferably including the utmost transparency, if not absolute transparency.

Our ballots, our votes, our elections, intended to serve the people's best interests... NOT elected and unelected government officials.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vetfather

From the Gateway Pundit -- how shocking.

They were so on point with the last election.

Never posted anything extreme or conspiratorial. s/

Maybe you'd believe it if it came from a less biased source, like Salon or Rolling Stone or Mother Jones.

Q. >
"Why do you need NEW ballots?"
====
twitter.com...

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Nope. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on government.

Preferably including the utmost transparency, if not absolute transparency.

Our ballots, our votes, our elections, intended to serve the people's best interests... NOT elected and unelected government officials.

That makes 0 sense.

The burden of proof is always on the acuser. Anyone can say they witnessed anything and be lying.

I can say Donald Trump humps baby dolphins in his Mar A Lago Aquarium... No matter how absolutely believable that is.. and how much sense it makes, I need more evidence than just my claim to make it true.

The only cases IMO where burden of proof ISNT on the Accuser, is in sexual assault situations where motive and circumstance are evident.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

One of those cases thrown out from lack of real evidence?

Did I refer to any court case? Nope. Only Senate hearings. So your question is moot... not to mention deflection and distraction.

If you can prove that witness wrong, an actual participant and eyewitness, please do.

The facts and truth are welcome... but not more of this crap.

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Eyewitness testimonies are to be ignored is the new m.o.? Only if someone can get photos and videos is it? Well wait, photos and videos can be doctored or even fabricated. So I guess there's nothing that could ever convince you that charlatans in your party could ever do such a thing amirite?

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Nope. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on government.

Preferably including the utmost transparency, if not absolute transparency.

Our ballots, our votes, our elections, intended to serve the people's best interests... NOT elected and unelected government officials.

That makes 0 sense.

The burden of proof is always on the acuser. Anyone can say they witnessed anything and be lying.

I can say Donald Trump humps baby dolphins in his Mar A Lago Aquarium... No matter how absolutely believable that is.. and how much sense it makes, I need more evidence than just my claim to make it true.

The only cases IMO where burden of proof ISNT on the Accuser, is in sexual assault situations where motive and circumstance are evident.

So by this logic, the gov't, more directly, our voting processes, shouldn't be questioned unless we have more proof?

Kind of defeats the purpose of transparent, free, open or insert any other synonym.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Why even bother having eyewitness testimonies at all then? Courts could really streamline case verdicts by skipping all them and sticking to the photos and documents.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh just make sure nobody will ever get this "proof" they're talking about, hell even let everyone see you do -whatever- because hell eyewitness accounts are the new no go.

originally posted by: godsovein

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

One of those cases thrown out from lack of real evidence?

Did I refer to any court case? Nope. Only Senate hearings. So your question is moot... not to mention deflection and distraction.

If you can prove that witness wrong, an actual participant and eyewitness, please do.

The facts and truth are welcome... but not more of this crap.

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Eyewitness testimonies are to be ignored is the new m.o.? Only if someone can get photos and videos is it? Well wait, photos and videos can be doctored or even fabricated. So I guess there's nothing that could ever convince you that charlatans in your party could ever do such a thing amirite?

Most of the photos/videos were proven not to be what observers claimed.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: godsovein

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

One of those cases thrown out from lack of real evidence?

Did I refer to any court case? Nope. Only Senate hearings. So your question is moot... not to mention deflection and distraction.

If you can prove that witness wrong, an actual participant and eyewitness, please do.

The facts and truth are welcome... but not more of this crap.

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Eyewitness testimonies are to be ignored is the new m.o.? Only if someone can get photos and videos is it? Well wait, photos and videos can be doctored or even fabricated. So I guess there's nothing that could ever convince you that charlatans in your party could ever do such a thing amirite?

Most of the photos/videos were proven not to be what observers claimed.

Citation required.

I've already asked if the witness(s) were not credible or deemed to be lying.

Well two conflicting sides to where we're at here, no links from either...

a reply to: Lucidparadox

The burden of proof is always on the acuser. Anyone can say they witnessed anything and be lying.

In civil matters, when a citizen accuses another citizen or business of something of something, yes, the burden of proof is on the accuser (plaintiff). Because citizens have rights.

In criminal matters, when government officials accuse a citizen of something, yes, the burden of proof is on the accuser (plaintiff). Because citizens have rights.

In government matters, government officials are conducting the business of the people -- citizens with the right to know exactly what the government is doing in their name and on their dime, because citizens have rights. Government does not have rights. They have enumerated Constitutional powers and duties in the service of the people.

The burden of proof that they are conducting the people's business properly is on government. They work for us. They serve us.

a reply to: JinMI

So by this logic, the gov't, more directly, our voting processes, shouldn't be questioned unless we have more proof?

Kind of defeats the purpose of transparent, free, open or insert any other synonym.

Especially when government has the ability to hide, deny, refuse and seal the necessary and proper evidence/proof.

originally posted by: Vetfather
Q. >
"Why do you need NEW ballots?"
====
twitter.com...

Any official reaction from the GOP?

originally posted by: godsovein
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Why even bother having eyewitness testimonies at all then? Courts could really streamline case verdicts by skipping all them and sticking to the photos and documents.

That's essentially what the Supreme Court (Justice Roberts) and the Appeals Courts did after the 2020 election. The cases alleging Election Fraud were thrown out because they only contained circumstantial evidence, like useless Whistleblower testimonies and sworn affidavits.

Amazing how honest Dems turn a blind eye to the obvious stealing...as long as the stealing helps their candidate.

I thought at least some dems had scruples and honor.

I was wrong.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Democrats overwhelmingly voted for JOHN "Free the Convicts!" FETTERMAN.

Still surprised by Democrat actions/inactions?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: IAMTAT

Democrats overwhelmingly voted for JOHN "Free the Convicts!" FETTERMAN.

Still surprised by Democrat actions/inactions?

I know the party itself is corrupt as hell...I just thought some individual democrat voters would actually have a conscience and object to winning dishonestly.

They don't care if they win through cheating.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: IAMTAT

Democrats overwhelmingly voted for JOHN "Free the Convicts!" FETTERMAN.

Still surprised by Democrat actions/inactions?

I know the party itself is corrupt as hell...I just thought some individual democrat voters would actually have a conscience and object to winning dishonestly.

They don't care if they win through cheating.

Interesting topic.

First, I'd wager, you'd have to get democrat voters to actually believe that there is dishonesty. They did in 2016......

a reply to: IAMTAT
You would think that these people would figure out that if they vote for a party that does wrong, then they are voting for a party that does wrong. What would have these people ever think that they would do anything right, for anyone…except of course for them selves??