So, what's the evidence?

originally posted by: Jykan
a reply to: Edumakated

So, that was looked into and evidence found to prove it. This seems different.

Though I will look for that documentary, that sounds right up my street...you wouldn't remember it's name would you?

The point is that the circumstantial evidence is there... there are too many mathematical anomalies that need to be looked into. Just like in that McDonald's case I shared. On the surface, everything looks fine until you actually start looking at the mathematical probabilities.

It has been shown that Biden got an unusual amount of late votes that just aren't statistically realistic. The down ticket votes don't make any sense when taken with votes for Biden.

The documentary is called McMillions...

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Lumenari

So you agree.

Accusations are not evidence.

I'll just drop this here.... posted 15 minutes ago.



Here is where we are at as of now.

Rampant fraud in Pennsylvania with over 50 witnesses, lawsuits against anyone using Dominion software, 6 states being sued, etc.

originally posted by: Never Despise
a reply to: Annee

There is always the scary old answer Andrew Jackson gave the Supreme Court when they ruled he couldn't send troops into Florida: "The judges have made their decision. Now let us see them enforce it." The troops ended up in Florida after all.

Nothing would surprise me.

I’m not hardcore anything except equality/equal rights and women’s rights to her body.

I’ve taken a real interest in history last couple years (not because of today’s politics).

I’m more into social anthropology (people doing normal everyday stuff in different eras) — but, that lead me to the Civil War.

YouTube is wonderful for history

a reply to: Edumakated

The point is that the circumstantial evidence is there

i can't speak for The U.S. but in a British Court Of Law circumstantial evidence is not permisable evidence.

Warrants have to be issued so " hard evidence " can be seized. And then presented in any court action.

This all sounds a bit hairy fairy.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Edumakated

The point is that the circumstantial evidence is there

i can't speak for The U.S. but in a British Court Of Law circumstantial evidence is not permisable evidence.

Warrants have to be issued so " hard evidence " can be seized. And then presented in any court action.

This all sounds a bit hairy fairy.

Ummm... that is what Trump's team is trying to do. However, to claim there is no "evidence" is disingenuous. It needs to be investigated as there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to warrant it.

a reply to: Lumenari

It's filed here.

Case No. 20-014780-AW

ETA: Previous direct link didn't work. You have to search manually.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Lumenari

It's filed here.

Case No. 20-014780-AW

Oh noez.

Now AM has to move the "there is no evidence" goalpost again.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Lumenari

It's filed here.

Case No. 20-014780-AW

That link throws an invalid caseId exception....

a reply to: Lumenari

That's not evidence though...not until it's ruled on.

originally posted by: slatesteam

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: trollz
Do you mean evidence that fraud took place in the election?

1. Many witnesses who were meant to act as Republican observers who are ready to testify under oath that they were barred from witnessing the handling and counting of ballots.
2. Witnesses who observed large amounts of ballots being brought to the vote-counting places shortly before those states suddenly flipped to Biden (ballots that were brought in late that would otherwise not be considered legal).
3. Witnesses who were told to "back-date" tons of late ballots so that they could be counted (in other words, ballots that were brought in late that would otherwise not be considered legal).
4. Admitted "errors" with voting software that caused thousands of votes for Trump to be counted as votes for Biden (in just one location alone).
5. A surge of over 128,000 sudden counted votes, 100% of which were for Biden, that was coincidentally just enough to flip MI to Biden
6. Verified Biden votes from dead people
7. Tons of ballots that are only filled out for Biden and nothing else
8. Pelosi having said previously that Biden would be president regardless of the vote results.

originally posted by: Annee
There is no known evidence at this time.

I'll just let that speak for itself.

Accusations are not evidence.

So kinda like the whole time the left has accused 45 of being racist?

Opinion vs Opinion?

originally posted by: Jykan
a reply to: Lumenari

That's not evidence though...not until it's ruled on.

There was enough evidence for the case to be considered by the court...

You do understand the difference between evidence and a ruling on the evidence, right?

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Lumenari

It's filed here.

Case No. 20-014780-AW

That link throws an invalid caseId exception....

Because you have to look it up by the case number that you were provided...

/facepalm

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Jykan
a reply to: Lumenari

That's not evidence though...not until it's ruled on.

There was enough evidence for the case to be considered by the court...

You do understand the difference between evidence and a ruling on the evidence, right?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

a reply to: Lumenari

I do.

If I'm suspected of murder and there's enough evidence for me to goto trial and I'm find not guilty....am i a murderer?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Lumenari

It's filed here.

Case No. 20-014780-AW

That link throws an invalid caseId exception....

Because you have to look it up by the case number that you were provided...

/facepalm

You aren't very bright are you?

originally posted by: Lumenari
There was enough evidence for the case to be considered by the court...

Anyone can file a suit, it's merits aren't determined at filing.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Lumenari

It's filed here.

Case No. 20-014780-AW

That link throws an invalid caseId exception....

Link was fixed. It worked on my end but I wasn't sure about direct linking from outside the database search.

originally posted by: Lumenari
Now AM has to move the "there is no evidence" goalpost again.

Actually I don't, since nothing has bene presented yet. We just covered this on the last page, did you forget already?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Lumenari

It's filed here.

Case No. 20-014780-AW

That link throws an invalid caseId exception....

Link was fixed. It worked on my end but I wasn't sure about direct linking from outside the database search.

Ah, you fixed the link. Thanks for saving me time attempting to explain a not found exception to a boomer.