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

a reply to: vonclod
All that has to be proven is that a concerted effort took place to effect the outcome of the 2020 election by a foreign entity. Then, the EO I posted from 2018 comes into affect.

Read it, understand what it means, then come back to me.

a reply to: PurpleFox

You mean like the concerted effort by a foreign entity in 2016?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
You believe Russia hacked into our voting systems to sway the election, but you don't believe that our own government did the same thing?

lmfao

"An alleged anonymous whistleblower’s email that was provided to a cybersecurity expert in testimony during an Arizona GOP state Senate meeting claimed that 35,000 fraudulent votes were given to each of the Democratic candidates in Pima County, Arizona.
A copy of the email was displayed during the event on Monday, as cited by retired Army Col. Phil Waldron. Waldron alleged that the information was from a Pima County tech support provider. "

If they sign the affidavit and come forward under penalty of perjury, would this count as direct evidence of a crime ?

There is are a lot of assumptions built into you hypothetical. Some guy singing an affidavit that 35,000 votes were changed is not going to be admissible evidence on its own. If they signed an affidavit that provided a detailed and credible explanation for how 35,000 votes were added to democratic candidates tallies (e.g., the who, when, where, what, and how of what they allege happened) and provided a credible means by which they know this information (i.e., not hearsay, not because the affiant is inferring anything, but because they witnessed something tangible), and that affidavit was submitted in a court case, then yes, it would may be considered admissible evidence. That does not mean it would be true, or even that the court would ultimately believe it, but that would likely be admissible evidence. You would still have to look at the other evidence admitted by both sides to determine what the ultimate facts of the case are. And to be clear, though, I see no chance of this happening.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Evidence can take many forms. Most basically, an affiant stating "I witnessed" or "I took part in" X where X is fraud

Perfect. There are plenty of accounts of people personally witnessing fraud taking place.

A load of ballots being hauled off a tractor trailer. Maricopa, AZ didn't validate the signatures of their 1.9 million ballots (republican poll watchers were forced to stay outside while these were being processed). 6,000 voters entered into the Maricopa, AZ database with no gender and a default date of birth. The american imigration council found about 300,000 votes from non-incarcerated felons who were ineligible to vote. Scanners processed potential anomalies in voting machines, and log them as an error in a batch file... which can be voted on by an administrator allowing them to move votes wherever they'd like. Again, remember the republican poll watchers were forced to stay outside. At 8:06;40pm 143,100 votes were injected... which is literally impossible given normal votes being tallied into the machines, therefore it must have been altered from the back end.

Also, AZ only went Biden by 12,000 people.

A tech specialist claims the Dominion voting systems are:
1) accessible online to alter the results, as per their user manual
2) servers being harbored outside of the USA

which is contrary to what the officials are trying to force into our ears.

Source: Arizona Election Fraud Hearing

This is JUST Arizona.

None of which have been put forward by Trump in court. Have you read none of this thread? Until Trump himself puts it forward as evidence and a judge accepts it, it is meaningless.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

None of which have been put forward by Trump in court. Have you read none of this thread? Until Trump himself puts it forward as evidence and a judge accepts it, it is meaningless.

Ahhh so now you change the goalposts. Originally the OP was "There is no actual evidence of voter fraud". But now you concede there is evidence of voter fraud, it just hasn't been presented in court by Trump himself. Well it's only a matter of time...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

None of which have been put forward by Trump in court. Have you read none of this thread? Until Trump himself puts it forward as evidence and a judge accepts it, it is meaningless.

Ahhh so now you change the goalposts. Originally the OP was "There is no actual evidence of voter fraud". But now you concede there is evidence of voter fraud, it just hasn't been presented in court by Trump himself. Well it's only a matter of time...

I would personally recognize when someone is trying to help me understand better.

But, that’s just me.

a reply to: PurpleFox

It did not sway the election, nor could it have. But the effort was made.

Go pick your bottom off the floor once you have finished your hilarity and think it through.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

None of which have been put forward by Trump in court. Have you read none of this thread? Until Trump himself puts it forward as evidence and a judge accepts it, it is meaningless.

Ahhh so now you change the goalposts. Originally the OP was "There is no actual evidence of voter fraud". But now you concede there is evidence of voter fraud, it just hasn't been presented in court by Trump himself. Well it's only a matter of time...

Lol. Did you read the OP? I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. Until it is presented in a court, we can assume that the evidence is not legitimate. Why? Because Trump has every incentive to submit all legitimate evidence in court. He not doing so. Thus we can conclude that he does not have legitimate evidence.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Lol. Did you read the OP? I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. Until it is presented in a court, we can assume that the evidence is not legitimate. Why? Because Trump has every incentive to submit all legitimate evidence in court. He not doing so. Thus we can conclude that he does not have legitimate evidence.

Your title is misleading "There is no actual evidence of voter fraud"

Why wouldn't he present the same evidence that was just presented to Arizona's legislature? Where can you find that he hasn't presented it in court yet?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: PurpleFox

It did not sway the election, nor could it have. But the effort was made.

Go pick your bottom off the floor once you have finished your hilarity and think it through.

Have you read the EO?

Do you understand its significance?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Lol. Did you read the OP? I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. Until it is presented in a court, we can assume that the evidence is not legitimate. Why? Because Trump has every incentive to submit all legitimate evidence in court. He not doing so. Thus we can conclude that he does not have legitimate evidence.

Why wouldn't he present the same evidence that was just presented to Arizona's legislature? Serious question (as they all have been).

Happy to provide a response but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here--Are you asking why wouldn't Trump submit evidence of fraud in court, or something else?

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: simbrono
You asked me to show you evidence, I did so. Obviously not everything in there can be 100% verified but its also impossible for everything on that list to be complete BS.

1 dead person voting is election fraud, btw.

And it changes nothing, of course there is "some' fraud..both sides too, but not enough to overturn..we will see Dec 14th.

any fraud should be enough to toss the election and hold a new one. Without machines. just hand ballots,no mail ins unless directly handed to a US marshall and witnessed by them in person with a D and R rep on site as well.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16


Happy to provide a response but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here--Are you asking why wouldn't Trump submit evidence of fraud in court, or something else?

Yeah the information they presented to the Arizona legislature seems like a big deal even if 1/10th of it is true... So what would be the hold up to present that to a court? Can you show how you know they didn't present this information to a court?

originally posted by: PurpleFox
Have you read the EO?

Do you understand its significance?

Have you?

At this point no one has put up any evidence of wide spread fraud, let alone that a foreign power was involved.

a reply to: PurpleFox

Yes. Do you?

a reply to: yuppa

Any fraud? What, even just a tiny one? To disenfranchise millions of votes?

Come off it, have a sense of perspective.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Have you?

At this point no one has put up any evidence of wide spread fraud, let alone that a foreign power was involved.

Watch this. TLDW: Yes there is fraud and there is, at the very least, potential for foreign influences to have been involved.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: yuppa

Any fraud? What, even just a tiny one? To disenfranchise millions of votes?

Someone literally just testified in Arizona that 1.9 million votes didn't have signature authentication.

a reply to: cooperton

Sure.

So much fraud but we'll just sit on it until the day the State's vote gets certified and not present it in court. Makes absolute sense.

You do know this hearing is just a glorified bitch session and nothing will come out of it, right?