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

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

No it's not hearsay. He personally had observed the fraud that took place in Venezuela using the smartmatic machines:


"All of the computer controlled voting tabulation is done in a closed
environment so that the voter and any observer cannot detect what is
taking place unless there is a malfunction or other event which causes the
observer to question the process. I saw first-hand that the manipulation
and changing of votes can be done in real-time at the secret counting
center which existed in Caracas, Venezuela. For me it was something
very surprising and disturbing. I was in awe because I had never been
present to actually see it occur and I saw it happen. So, I learned firsthand that it doesn’t matter what the voter decides or what the paper
ballot says. It’s the software operator and the software that decides what
counts – not the voter. "

The only reason you don't want this investigated is because your favored candidate won. Seriously... these are allegations that there are foreign powers that are sieging our elections... It's bigger than Trump vs Biden.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Mandroid7
That was an awfully long post for someone with confidence.

Trump will win.

Look, I'm a long-time lurker that came here for the aliens, and just now felt like I finally had some information that could be useful in these debates. Feel free to disregard my take, but I have a good deal of experience in this area and feel confident in my analysis.

So you came for the aliens a long time ago but you suddenly decided to register Nov 24th and the only threads you post on are the election fraud ones and you are working very hard to convince everyone that Trump doesn’t have a chance and the communists didn’t really steal the election... ok got it

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. 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...

This also will not be credited by any court. This is a woefully lacking attempt at an expert report. It is based on results of a survey that the author of the report did not conduct and provides no methodological information about. The author of the report also offers almost no information on his own methodologies calculations. Again, you can feel free to believe what you want, but I can assure you that this not meet the standard of admissibility for expert testimony in federal court because it is not have the requisite guarantees of reliability and methodological soundness..

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Mandroid7
That was an awfully long post for someone with confidence.

Trump will win.

Look, I'm a long-time lurker that came here for the aliens, and just now felt like I finally had some information that could be useful in these debates. Feel free to disregard my take, but I have a good deal of experience in this area and feel confident in my analysis.

So you came for the aliens a long time ago but you suddenly decided to register Nov 24th and the only threads you post on are the election fraud ones and you are working very hard to convince everyone that Trump doesn’t have a chance and the communists didn’t really steal the election... ok got it

Basically. But based on sound logic and reason that no one has been able to refute. And I comment on the threads where I have the most relevant knowledge; that makes sense, doesn't it?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Basically. But based on sound logic and reason that no one has been able to refute. And I comment on the threads where I have the most relevant knowledge; that makes sense, doesn't it?

There are sworn affidavits that Venezuela used these same voting software companies to manipulate their elections. Should we investigate or not? If you put political affiliation aside, it is an easy "yes we should definitely investigate".

Just popping in to say: my heartiest congratulations to the OP for their temperate and lucid responses throughout, even under serious provocation.

Kudos also for a thread with a simple, easy-to-comprehend but devastating premise. Not often reality is brought home to ATS in this way.

It may, who knows, even inspire a few to think again.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

No he personally had observed the fraud that took place in Venezuela using the smartmatic machines:


"All of the computer controlled voting tabulation is done in a closed
environment so that the voter and any observer cannot detect what is
taking place unless there is a malfunction or other event which causes the
observer to question the process. I saw first-hand that the manipulation
and changing of votes can be done in real-time at the secret counting
center which existed in Caracas, Venezuela. For me it was something
very surprising and disturbing. I was in awe because I had never been
present to actually see it occur and I saw it happen. So, I learned firsthand that it doesn’t matter what the voter decides or what the paper
ballot says. It’s the software operator and the software that decides what
counts – not the voter. "

The only reason you don't want this investigated is because your favored candidate won. Seriously... these are allegations that there are foreign powers that are sieging our elections... It's bigger than Trump vs Biden.

I'm literally not talking about what I do or do not want. You can look through every one of my posts and you will nowhere find me talking about my wants or desires. I am telling you what courts will and will not accept as evidence. You don't have to take my word for it, but I know what I am talking about and things will play out as I am saying.

No court is going to believe that this man witnessed Venezuelan vote changing. It just will not happen. And even if they did, the statement that you quote above is evidence of nothing. He states that he witnessed how votes can be changed, not that he witnessed votes actually being changed in this election. The whole thing is utter nonsense that will not be credited by the courts, and that is just another reason to add to the list.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Doctor Smith

He is retired. He is also a raving lunatic.

He supported a war based on false allegations of his about Saddam's non existent WMD 's.

Did you put your confidence in that, I wonder?

Oh right because you say so! Or was that cnn ? Not to mention the fact that Congress voted for the war.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

I'm literally not talking about what I do or do not want. You can look through every one of my posts and you will nowhere find me talking about my wants or desires. I am telling you what courts will and will not accept as evidence. You don't have to take my word for it, but I know what I am talking about and things will play out as I am saying.

No court is going to believe that this man witnessed Venezuelan vote changing. It just will not happen. And even if they did, the statement that you quote above is evidence of nothing. He states that he witnessed how votes can be changed, not that he witnessed votes actually being changed in this election. The whole thing is utter nonsense that will not be credited by the courts, and that is just another reason to add to the list.

How many affidavits do you suppose would be required? What's even the point of an affidavit if it carries no weight? Exhibit 2 is just one example of many sworn affidavits attesting to large-scale election fraud.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Basically. But based on sound logic and reason that no one has been able to refute. And I comment on the threads where I have the most relevant knowledge; that makes sense, doesn't it?

There are sworn affidavits that Venezuela used these same voting software companies to manipulate their elections. Should we investigate or not? If you put political affiliation aside, it is an easy "yes we should definitely investigate".

No. The word of one man talking about what purportedly happened in a foreign country years ago with no corroborating evidence is not enough to call into question our elections in a court of law. There is a reason that these theories are not being put forward by Trump himself--they are meritless.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

I'm literally not talking about what I do or do not want. You can look through every one of my posts and you will nowhere find me talking about my wants or desires. I am telling you what courts will and will not accept as evidence. You don't have to take my word for it, but I know what I am talking about and things will play out as I am saying.

No court is going to believe that this man witnessed Venezuelan vote changing. It just will not happen. And even if they did, the statement that you quote above is evidence of nothing. He states that he witnessed how votes can be changed, not that he witnessed votes actually being changed in this election. The whole thing is utter nonsense that will not be credited by the courts, and that is just another reason to add to the list.

How many affidavits do you suppose would be required? What's even the point of an affidavit if it carries no weight? Exhibit 2 is just one example of many sworn affidavits attesting to large-scale election fraud.

Exhibit 2 talks about fraud in Venezuela, not the US! It is irrelevant and totally unbelievable. What you would need are a handful of credible affidavits from people that witnessed verifiable fraud--not someone stating that they saw votes placed in one pile or another, not someone saying that they saw a suspicious van.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Exhibit 2 talks about fraud in Venezuela, not the US!

The point was that it was the same Smartmatic company that allowed it in Venezuela that would have easily been allowed to do the same thing in the US... especially because half the country turns a total blind eye to the potential for election fraud because their favored candidate won

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

No. The word of one man

What about the other 28 exhibits?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

No. The word of one man

What about the other 28 exhibits?

Link to the ones you think are credible. I'll let you know why they are not.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Link to the ones you think are credible. I'll let you know why they are not.

Your bias is showing... Why do you assume it will not merit credibility?


well first.. what would constitute to you as proof?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Doctor Smith

He is retired. He is also a raving lunatic.

He supported a war based on false allegations of his about Saddam's non existent WMD 's.

Did you put your confidence in that, I wonder?

Oh right because you say so! Or was that cnn ? Not to mention the fact that Congress voted for the war.

Because you say so?

Is he not retired?

Did he not push for a war based on fabricated "evidence" of WMD's?

Granted, it's just my opinion that he is a lunatic.

But he is, though.

And Congress was told a pack of lies about these WMD's.

a reply to: johnnylaw16
You don't get to see evidence from military tribunals my guy.

a reply to: PurpleFox

What Military Tribunal is relevant here?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

When you have CEOs of Twitter, YouTube, Google, Facebook, Amazon throwing everything behind Democrats?

When you see a majority of the media on television, internet and radio CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, huffpost, AOL. Support Democrats.

Hollyweird and their tight knit cult is very pro Democrat , lots of money,power, and influence coming out of that industry.

Many instances of fbi agents conducting investigations into Republicans and vowing their loyalty to Democrats.

College environment and professors are the worse.

It's the nwo, deep state....

Not the kind of power the u.s. people should want

originally posted by: Dalamax
Gotta give the people what they want I guess?
a reply to: Bloodworth

High taxes who cares it's not trump

High gas prices who cares

Less safety from Islamic terrorism, who cares

Heath care mandate fine, who cares

These people were so obsessed with getting rid of trump, all logic and common sense went out the window.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Link to the ones you think are credible. I'll let you know why they are not.

Your bias is showing... Why do you assume it will not merit credibility?


well first.. what would constitute to you as proof?

I do not assume, I've gone through them already. There isn't anything there. I'm not going to type up a report on each one, but I am happy to discuss any specific ones that you have questions about.

Evidence can take many forms. Most basically, an affiant stating "I witnessed" or "I took part in" X where X is fraud--not suspicion of fraud, not something vague that might be fraud if assumptions are made, but actual, demonstrable fraud. It might also take the form of an expert opinion, but where that expert has solid credentials, is employing a methodology that is sound, makes their methodology clear such that others can reliable replicate their results, and is relying on demonstrably sound data and facts. And for the record, this is not about what I would consider proof, this is what courts will require of Plaintiffs alleging fraud.