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

a reply to: johnnylaw16


Well Played Johnny!

I've been here a long time, and I've never known anyone come into such a partizan atmosphere and systematically silence so many people that were so sure of their "facts" in such a professional and eloquent manner.

Well played Sir!

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

Sorry what are you referring to by “SSC”?

State Supreme Court

Ah, ok.

Yes. In some instances, if the evidence was not available at trial, you may be able to convince an appellate court to consider it. It’s a rare occasion and the evidence would have to have been truly unavailable. Which would be had to prove in Trump’s case, where he has claimed to have the evidence since the beginning.

Interesting that your response reads almost exactly like where I read my information from. Keywords are important and googles a blast,yeah?
....and I’m going leave it at that.

All you're proving is that I know what I am talking about.

Nah, that ain’t it, try again.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

Sorry what are you referring to by “SSC”?

State Supreme Court

Ah, ok.

Yes. In some instances, if the evidence was not available at trial, you may be able to convince an appellate court to consider it. It’s a rare occasion and the evidence would have to have been truly unavailable. Which would be had to prove in Trump’s case, where he has claimed to have the evidence since the beginning.

Interesting that your response reads almost exactly like where I read my information from. Keywords are important and googles a blast,yeah?
....and I’m going leave it at that.

All you're proving is that I know what I am talking about.

Nah, that ain’t it, try again.

Why don't you put forward something that you'd actually like to debate? Unless, you've now accepted the OP of this thread . . .

originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: johnnylaw16


Well Played Johnny!

I've been here a long time, and I've never known anyone come into such a partizan atmosphere and systematically silence so many people that were so sure of their "facts" in such a professional and eloquent manner.

Well played Sir!

Appreciate it!

But I'm fine if people aren't silenced. I'm all for someone putting forth something to debate, or even just asking legal questions. Not getting a lot of substance though.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

You want proof, here is all you need:

"US Constitution Election Day
In the United States, Election Text is the annual day set by law for the general elections of federal public officials. It is statutorily set by the Federal Government as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" equaling the Tuesday occurring within November 2 to November 8."

Any vote after election day is fraudulent.

Here is more for you:

"Executive orders issued by state governors are not the same as statutes passed by state legislatures and are not law."

Therefore, all mandates regarding mail-in ballots, are not law all mail-in ballots are deemed illegal, the only state that passed legislation for mail-in ballots was and is Nevada.

You wanted law? Clear constitutional laws.

That said, the 14th amendment provides equal protection of the laws.

originally posted by: antmax21
a reply to: johnnylaw16

You want proof, here is all you need:

"US Constitution Election Day
In the United States, Election Text is the annual day set by law for the general elections of federal public officials. It is statutorily set by the Federal Government as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" equaling the Tuesday occurring within November 2 to November 8."

Any vote after election day is fraudulent.

Here is more for you:

"Executive orders issued by state governors are not the same as statutes passed by state legislatures and are not law."

Therefore, all mandates regarding mail-in ballots, are not law all mail-in ballots are deemed illegal, the only state that passed legislation for mail-in ballots was and is Nevada.

You wanted law? Clear constitutional laws.

That said, the 14th amendment provides equal protection of the laws.

There are a number of things wrong with these statements. First, no one disagrees that people cannot vote after election day. Bat that did not happen; no one is arguing about that. The argument is whether votes cast before or on election day can be counted, even if received after election day. There is nothing unconstitutional about that; indeed, it happens every year with military ballots. The question is merely whether it is permissible under PA's constitution and laws.

And again, it is not clear that all actions taken by the governor on mail-in balloting are per se unconstitutional. The function of the executive is, not surprisingly, to execute the laws passed by congress. There is a certain amount of interpretation and discretion involved in that. Some actions are certainly over-steps, but it is not as black and white as saying that all action on mail-in balloting by governors are unconstitutional. Moreover, as far as I currently aware, this is only an issue in PA, not any other state.

Finally, none of this is, even if you were right, constitutes voter fraud. Fraud is a purposeful action taken to deceive. Faking ballots would be fraud; tampering with voting machines to weigh votes differently would be fraud; nothing that you have stated is fraud (and we have no evidence that any fraud occurred).

So, to sum up: Sorry, try again.

Are you for or against doing a deep audit on the voting machines to ensure these elections were fair?

originally posted by: cooperton
Are you for or against doing a deep audit on the voting machines to ensure these elections were fair?

I’d have no problem with an independent third party conducting an audit. But I see no need for one occurring at this point.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

I’d have no problem with an independent third party conducting an audit.

This would be wonderful. It's really not too much to ask. It should be the norm to audit the machines that are tallying our elections. Otherwise, they have a sort of monopoly on our votes...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

I’d have no problem with an independent third party conducting an audit.

This would be wonderful. It's really not too much to ask. It should be the norm to audit the machines that are tallying our elections. Otherwise, they have a sort of monopoly on our votes...

It has happened. Before and after the election:

www.inquirer.com...

www.cnbc.com...

Thirty-five pages deep and nearly 700 posts later, we have had no one come forward with anything to rebut the points made in the OP.

We've had a lot of bluster, a bit of name calling, and very few substantive challenges to my points. Though through it all, I think it's fair to say, that my points still hold up.

Looking forward to see if anyone wants to come forward with any substantive challenges, or if anyone even wants to ask anymore questions.

Another point folks don’t ever bring up is if you say Biden side cheated or the election has been rigged from the Dem side,
then what about the possibility of the Trump side cheating?

We know Trump has a background of cheating. We know he is an inveterate liar…
We know he is a long and short con man.

So, if one is going to investigate if one side cheated, you have to explore the possibility the other side cheated too.

Wow.. 8000 pages of evidence of election law violations, were given to the Nevada Court today!

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
Wow.. 8000 pages of evidence of election law violations, were given to the Nevada Court today!

mobile.twitter.com...

Yeah, I haven't been able to locate the docket for this case or any postings of this evidence (nevada may not post this stuff publicly online). If anyone has links, please share.

Will be interesting to see what the judge makes of it.

I must say though, regardless of the evidence's validity, I am surprised that they chose to submit so many binders. That volume of evidence will seriously tick off the judge if it is not extremely convincing.

This lawyer reminds me of the OP.

You need to talk to Rudy

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Ignoring evidence is ignorance.

video doesn't work for me.