There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

No one has linked to any credible evidence of voter fraud put forth by anyone in court.

Have you read Powell's litigation against Georgia?

They make some compelling points in my opinion. the proof is apparently spelled out in the affidavits, exhibits, and footnote sources (unless they are simply bluffing and wasting their time). Unfortunately the pdf doesn't include access to the affidavits, exhibits, and footnote sources so I guess that would be the determining factor.

"Full unredacted copies of all exhibits have been filed under seal with the Court
and Plaintiffs have simultaneously moved for a protective order."

If they have support for the claims they make in this pdf, then I don't see how it will not be considered by the higher courts.

Yes, I can assure you that no court will take these claims seriously, and this case will be dismissed shortly. You can go through many of the exhibits elsewhere. They are not credible and will not be credited by the court.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You see wearing masks as freedom issue.

Do you think someone with HIV or know they've been with someone with has the 'right' to not wear a condom when with a new partner?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Xtrozero

You see wearing masks as freedom issue.

Do you think someone with HIV or know they've been with someone with has the 'right' to not wear a condom when with a new partner?

Give it a few months. Once the cool~aid has been diluted, and Biden takes office the antimaskers selfish covid philosophy will de-materialize. Disperse.,,, Like the snows of yesteryear, vanished from this planet...

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Incoming "Sky Cry". It looks to me like you're another "it doesn't exist" man to me. Just like Baghdad Bob was. LOL

A lawyer says Bla Bla bla.

I think I'll believe the two USA Generals that say the opposite of you instead.

WVW-TV Exclusive: Lt. General Michael Flynn's First Interview Since President Trump's Pardon Includes His Talking About the Ongoing Coup w/ Guest Lt. General McInerney

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

Yes, for accuracy's sake, I included the term "generally" because there are rare instances where the supreme court will hear new evidence but none applies here. An example would be when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case (such as cases involving Ambassadors, as mentioned in Article III of the Constitution). There is no reason that the Supreme Court would hear new evidence in any of Trump's lawsuits. if you believe this is incorrect, I am always up to hear a different theory.

In this case they may have not had all the proof they needed due to the ASAP nature of the election. They are probably collecting tons of evidence every day. They have to sort it out. So a judge would obviously be derelict in their duties to not hear all the new evidence.

I can't tell if you're joking, but for clarity's sake: No, a judge would not be derelict in refusing to hear new evidence that was not submitted at trial. That is not how these things work. And if they were sorting through evidence each day, we would expect to see that evidence being filed in court. We are not seeing that.

That's just your opinion. That's how a kangaroo court works. Not allowing all the evidence to be heard.

Any evidence put before a court system packed with liberal Democrats wont do jack.

These people were so anti trump they all came together to make a pact that nothing will be out of their reach.

Democrats control the media which controls what people hear and see

Democrats control silicon valley with their algorithms and suppressing of info

Democrats control hollyweird, lots of money and power coming out of that nasty industry

Democrats control college academia. this is where the are taught to hate America and white people

Democrats control a good % of the FBI

Democrats use boots on the ground to intimidate in the form of antifa and BLM.

I already said they are planning on packing the courts.

This was an impossible win for trump.

We are seeing a nwo style Orwellian govenment that is backed and financed by the biggest companies.

Because common sense tells us a majority of American citizens

Dont want to pay the heath care mandate fine again
They dont like hunter biden leading in foreign policy, anti Americans like aoc, Omar, talib, beto, abrahams.

People dont want to defund the police and military

People don't want less safety from Islamic
terrorism

The Democrats ideas are radical and huge gambles.
Increase minimum wage , green deals, free college, wiping away debt.

The Democrats do not think about the ramifications of their actions.

Like increasing the minimum wage just forces companies to only hire part time.

I doubt there are that many people out there who lack so much common sense they would vote for old Joe.

Have you seen or heard the guy,,,he is a mess.

Gotta give the people what they want I guess?
a reply to: Bloodworth

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: tanstaafl

rnaa said:

There has actually been 1 fraudulent vote PROVEN in Pennsylvania - and yet it has not been presented in court as evidence by anyone on Trump's "team". Why not?

To which I replied:
"There is no evidence your claim is true. See, I can do it too."

rnaa then replied:

Lt. Gov. Fetterman seeks claim of $1M voter fraud reward from Texas lieutenant governor

Pa. Lieut. Governor Urges Man Charged With Voter Fraud to Apply for Pardon if Convicted: 'I Believe in a 2nd Chance'

"Fetterman referenced a case in Luzerne County where 67-year-old Robert Richard Lynn is charged with signing the name of his mother, who had died in May 2015, on an absentee ballot application, according to Fox 8 News. Lynn — a registered Republican — is charged with forgery and interference with primaries/elections, court documents show.

In an interview Wednesday with CNN, Fetterman said state officials have not seen any other cases of voter fraud."

Sorry, this doesn't prove your claim.

They caught him when he applied for the absentee ballot, before he voted the ballot.

So, there was no 'fraudulent vote' cast.

This is very good news though!

What you did here, totally unintentionally I'm sure, is show precisely why signature verification during the entire process, from registration, to the actual vote being cast - especially with respect to the mail-in voting process (absentee registration, ballot request, ballot submission, count and re-counts). This includes the necessity of keeping the inner and outer envelopes for all mail-in ballots together, for verification purposes in the case of a need for a recount.

Thank you very much for proving our case!

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Thank you very much for proving our case!

Is there something amiss here? You seem to have quite a fair bit invested in this dog and pony show...

originally posted by: Dalamax
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Thank you very much for proving our case!"

Is there something amiss here?

You tell me:

You seem to have quite a fair bit invested in this dog and pony show...

Ummm... yes, as I would hope all American Citizens would who want free and fair elections, as opposed to a system that enables massive fraud to the point of our becoming just another banana republic.

It’s a stale cartoon. You can’t fix a dysfunctional system by using the system. That’s crazy talk.
Why argue the disagreements down to the nub?
It will or it won’t. Test and adjust.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Whatever happened to that jizz lane maxswell?
a reply to:

originally posted by: Dalamax
It’s a stale cartoon. You can’t fix a dysfunctional system by using the system. That’s crazy talk.
Why argue the disagreements down to the nub?
It will or it won’t. Test and adjust.

What the frack are you yammering about?

Talk sense man!

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

Yes, for accuracy's sake, I included the term "generally" because there are rare instances where the supreme court will hear new evidence but none applies here. An example would be when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case (such as cases involving Ambassadors, as mentioned in Article III of the Constitution). There is no reason that the Supreme Court would hear new evidence in any of Trump's lawsuits. if you believe this is incorrect, I am always up to hear a different theory.

In this case they may have not had all the proof they needed due to the ASAP nature of the election. They are probably collecting tons of evidence every day. They have to sort it out. So a judge would obviously be derelict in their duties to not hear all the new evidence.

I can't tell if you're joking, but for clarity's sake: No, a judge would not be derelict in refusing to hear new evidence that was not submitted at trial. That is not how these things work. And if they were sorting through evidence each day, we would expect to see that evidence being filed in court. We are not seeing that.

That's just your opinion. That's how a kangaroo court works. Not allowing all the evidence to be heard.

That’s how the United States legal system works. There are rules and established case law on this. By not attempting to admit evidence at the trial court, you waive your right to do so later.

a reply to: jrod

Yes so long as they disclose that they are HIV positive to the person they are sleeping with so they as two consenting adults can decide for themselves what risk they wish to take.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Incoming "Sky Cry". It looks to me like you're another "it doesn't exist" man to me. Just like Baghdad Bob was. LOL

A lawyer says Bla Bla bla.

I think I'll believe the two USA Generals that say the opposite of you instead.

WVW-TV Exclusive: Lt. General Michael Flynn's First Interview Since President Trump's Pardon Includes His Talking About the Ongoing Coup w/ Guest Lt. General McInerney

You are free to take the word of a convicted liar and crazy bigot over mine. You would be well served to look into these issues more on your own though. Burying your head in the sand will not yield much in the way knowledge.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Any evidence put before a court system packed with liberal Democrats wont do jack.

These people were so anti trump they all came together to make a pact that nothing will be out of their reach.

Democrats control the media which controls what people hear and see

Democrats control silicon valley with their algorithms and suppressing of info

Democrats control hollyweird, lots of money and power coming out of that nasty industry

Democrats control college academia. this is where the are taught to hate America and white people

Democrats control a good % of the FBI

Democrats use boots on the ground to intimidate in the form of antifa and BLM.

I already said they are planning on packing the courts.

This was an impossible win for trump.

We are seeing a nwo style Orwellian govenment that is backed and financed by the biggest companies.

Because common sense tells us a majority of American citizens

Dont want to pay the heath care mandate fine again
They dont like hunter biden leading in foreign policy, anti Americans like aoc, Omar, talib, beto, abrahams.

People dont want to defund the police and military

People don't want less safety from Islamic
terrorism

The Democrats ideas are radical and huge gambles.
Increase minimum wage , green deals, free college, wiping away debt.

The Democrats do not think about the ramifications of their actions.

Like increasing the minimum wage just forces companies to only hire part time.

I doubt there are that many people out there who lack so much common sense they would vote for old Joe.

Have you seen or heard the guy,,,he is a mess.

I pity you. It is a very dark hellscape that you appear to live in, with everything around you controlled by an ever-present evil force. I hope you find happiness and come back to reality one of these days.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Yes, I can assure you that no court will take these claims seriously, and this case will be dismissed shortly. You can go through many of the exhibits elsewhere. They are not credible and will not be credited by the court.

Ok I found the exhibits. Just the first exhibit alone is enough to warrant an audit, especially since the number of sketchy votes surpasses the margin of victory in these battleground states.

Exhibit 1

Take for example Arizona which had 300,000+ votes that were either unsolicited absentee ballots or were returned ballots that were marked as not being received. The margin of victory in Arizona was only 11,000 votes. That means if merely 54% of these sketchy votes are realized to favor Donald Trump, then the state is changed to a Trump win... YUGE. I would expect this number to be way more than 54% favoring Trump because Biden got an overwhelming majority of mail in votes, meaning that if they are in fact fraudulent then Biden would lose many more votes than Trump.

This data in this exhibit alone could potentially change the outcome...

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Yes, I can assure you that no court will take these claims seriously, and this case will be dismissed shortly.

"But later, in 2017 when there were elections where Maduro was running
and elections for legislators in Venezuela, [censored name] and Smartmatic broke
their secrecy pact with the government of Venezuela. He made a public
announcement through the media in which he stated that all the
Smartmatic voting machines used during those elections were totally
manipulated and they were manipulated by the electoral council of
Venezuela back then. [censored name] stated that all of the votes for Nicholas
Maduro and the other persons running for the legislature were
manipulated and they actually had lost. So I think that's the greatest
proof that the fraud can be carried out and will be denied by the software
company that [censored name] admitted publicly that Smartmatic had created,
used and still uses vote counting software that can be manipulated or
altered."

Exhibit 2

You think this is nothing? This is a sworn affidavit showing that smartmatic was purposefully rigging an election in Venezuela...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Yes, I can assure you that no court will take these claims seriously, and this case will be dismissed shortly.

"But later, in 2017 when there were elections where Maduro was running
and elections for legislators in Venezuela, [censored name] and Smartmatic broke
their secrecy pact with the government of Venezuela. He made a public
announcement through the media in which he stated that all the
Smartmatic voting machines used during those elections were totally
manipulated and they were manipulated by the electoral council of
Venezuela back then. [censored name] stated that all of the votes for Nicholas
Maduro and the other persons running for the legislature were
manipulated and they actually had lost. So I think that's the greatest
proof that the fraud can be carried out and will be denied by the software
company that [censored name] admitted publicly that Smartmatic had created,
used and still uses vote counting software that can be manipulated or
altered."

Exhibit 2

You think this is nothing? This is a sworn affidavit showing that smartmatic was purposefully rigging an election in Venezuela...

This is a laughable attempt at evidence. I can assure with 100% certainty that this will not be credited by any court. Beyond the fact that it is unbelievable on its face (to the extent that no court would credit it), the following paragraph ensures that it cannot be credited:

"I have worked in gathering information, researching, and working with information technology. That's what I know how to do and the special knowledge that I have. Due to these recent election events, I contacted a number of reliable and intelligent ex-co-workers of mine that are still informants and work with the intelligence community. I asked for them to give me information that was up-to-date information in as far as how all these businesses are acting, what actions they are taking."

This is what we call hearsay. I know what I know because someone else told it to me. If you prefer the more technical definition, hearsay is any out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter being asserted. Here, the out of court statements are what this affiant was purported told by his "sources." And he is offer that matter as truth. It will not be accepted by any court.