Democrats Nuke Georgia Voting Machine Server on "Accident" During Recount

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Echo007

So far, that has been the most troubling aspect of this. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who actually won, at least in my opinion. However, when you remove the trust of that large of a segment of the population it does irreparable harm to the nation as a whole. There is also an element of danger there as a percentage of that larger group may feel slighted enough to do something about it.

Are all the judges part of the deceit?

Just the ones to whom Zuckerberg paid $400 million.

Let me know when you prove that in court.

Until then — unsubstantiated — like most everything else.

All of a sudden a court has to prove something to you? Would you like me to repost your last 4 years back to you?
Everything the CNN told you, you came on here and regurgitated as if you were getting supplemental income to do so.
How’s that Russian Collusion going for you? You swallowed Schiff’s lies and asked for seconds.
Google can tell you Zuck spent 400 million dollars on this election, you don’t need someone wearing a black robe to tell you that.
But that’s normal, right?

All of a sudden? Pretty sure I’ve been very straight forward about facts & logic for awhile.

I haven’t listened to “talking heads” for at least 10 years.

Ah yes, you all, love to throw Mueller in. Here is what Mueller actually said:

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

He never said there was no collusion. He left it “open”.

originally posted by: jrod
Even if this is true, there are still paper ballots to use.

Those who want Trump to win are getting more desperate. I have never seen so many adults melt down because their team lost.

since 2016.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Echo007

So far, that has been the most troubling aspect of this. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who actually won, at least in my opinion. However, when you remove the trust of that large of a segment of the population it does irreparable harm to the nation as a whole. There is also an element of danger there as a percentage of that larger group may feel slighted enough to do something about it.

Are all the judges part of the deceit?

Just the ones to whom Zuckerberg paid $400 million.

Let me know when you prove that in court.

Until then — unsubstantiated — like most everything else.

All of a sudden a court has to prove something to you? Would you like me to repost your last 4 years back to you?
Everything the CNN told you, you came on here and regurgitated as if you were getting supplemental income to do so.
How’s that Russian Collusion going for you? You swallowed Schiff’s lies and asked for seconds.
Google can tell you Zuck spent 400 million dollars on this election, you don’t need someone wearing a black robe to tell you that.
But that’s normal, right?

All of a sudden? Pretty sure I’ve been very straight forward about facts & logic for awhile.

I haven’t listened to “talking heads” for at least 10 years.

Ah yes, you all, love to throw Mueller in. Here is what Mueller actually said:

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

He never said there was no collusion. He left it “open”.

Hillary made up the Russia stuff to distract from her E-mail server.
If there was any shred of evidence that Trump or his team colluded with Russia, Trump would be under the jail now.
At least pretend you are paying attention.

a reply to: Annee

Hey , why are you on this site . Obviously you don’t like conspiracy theories . Obviously you are either paid by the dems or are the biggest fool ever . Which is it ? Why would you be on a conspiracy site other then to spout your propaganda for your masters

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Echo007

So far, that has been the most troubling aspect of this. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who actually won, at least in my opinion. However, when you remove the trust of that large of a segment of the population it does irreparable harm to the nation as a whole. There is also an element of danger there as a percentage of that larger group may feel slighted enough to do something about it.

Are all the judges part of the deceit?

Just the ones to whom Zuckerberg paid $400 million.

Let me know when you prove that in court.

Until then — unsubstantiated — like most everything else.

All of a sudden a court has to prove something to you? Would you like me to repost your last 4 years back to you?
Everything the CNN told you, you came on here and regurgitated as if you were getting supplemental income to do so.
How’s that Russian Collusion going for you? You swallowed Schiff’s lies and asked for seconds.
Google can tell you Zuck spent 400 million dollars on this election, you don’t need someone wearing a black robe to tell you that.
But that’s normal, right?

All of a sudden? Pretty sure I’ve been very straight forward about facts & logic for awhile.

I haven’t listened to “talking heads” for at least 10 years.

Ah yes, you all, love to throw Mueller in. Here is what Mueller actually said:

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

He never said there was no collusion. He left it “open”.

Hillary made up the Russia stuff to distract from her E-mail server.
If there was any shred of evidence that Trump or his team colluded with Russia, Trump would be under the jail now.
At least pretend you are paying attention.

I posted what Mueller put in his report.

He never said there was no collusion.

Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with a crime was “not an option” because of federal rules, but he used his first public remarks on the Russia investigation to emphasize that he did not exonerate the president.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.

a reply to: Annee

Hi
just wondering if Muller said that in a court and produced the evidence in the court to support his statement?

After all many public facing people have made statements that aren't true in the public domain then fail to support them in a courtroom.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Echo007

So far, that has been the most troubling aspect of this. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who actually won, at least in my opinion. However, when you remove the trust of that large of a segment of the population it does irreparable harm to the nation as a whole. There is also an element of danger there as a percentage of that larger group may feel slighted enough to do something about it.

So far, has anything stood up in a court of law?

Are we not supposed to trust the process?

Are all the judges part of the deceit?

What I have been hearing is that these judges won't even look at any evidence
Trump's team has brought to them.In my opinion,this "election" is starting to
smell like a treasonous coup against the president and our citizens.Then,I have
to remind myself we are in the end times and things will get worse.

a reply to: cooperton

She probably isn't because her side "won".

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Echo007

So far, that has been the most troubling aspect of this. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who actually won, at least in my opinion. However, when you remove the trust of that large of a segment of the population it does irreparable harm to the nation as a whole. There is also an element of danger there as a percentage of that larger group may feel slighted enough to do something about it.

So far, has anything stood up in a court of law?

Are we not supposed to trust the process?

Are all the judges part of the deceit?

What I have been hearing is that these judges won't even look at any evidence
Trump's team has brought to them.In my opinion,this "election" is starting to
smell like a treasonous coup against the president and our citizens.Then,I have
to remind myself we are in the end times and things will get worse.

Because they can’t back up their accusations/affidavits with factual proof.

a reply to: Annee

With the democrats destroying evidence it will be difficult
to prove.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: cooperton

She probably isn't because her side "won".

All I’ve done is say prove it.

Accusations have to be backed up by provable fact.

Has nothing to do with “feelz”.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Annee

With the democrats destroying evidence it will be difficult
to prove.

And yet - “you” have not proven evidence was destroyed.

a reply to: jrod

Correction...their team was STOLEN,big difference.
I am not melting down,I am waiting for the OFFICIAL
verdict on December 14th,I think.

originally posted by: kwakakev
Is there any evidence this is an 'accident'? Looks like a clear case of destruction of evidence from here.

Exactly!

Without Evidence, Democrats call it an accident

a reply to: carewemust

All i saw was someone going outside for a smoke break. As to what he was doing im sure his company was paying him to monitor the system. Think about it why else would they pay him to be there???

originally posted by: Butterfinger

originally posted by: kwakakev
Is there any evidence this is an 'accident'? Looks like a clear case of destruction of evidence from here.

Exactly!

Without Evidence, Democrats call it an accident

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Butterfinger

originally posted by: kwakakev
Is there any evidence this is an 'accident'? Looks like a clear case of destruction of evidence from here.

Exactly!

Without Evidence, Democrats call it an accident

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

See how that works? Do they have evidence that it was an accident?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: carewemust

All i saw was someone going outside for a smoke break. As to what he was doing im sure his company was paying him to monitor the system. Think about it why else would they pay him to be there???

Aren’t breaks legally required by law?

originally posted by: Butterfinger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Butterfinger

originally posted by: kwakakev
Is there any evidence this is an 'accident'? Looks like a clear case of destruction of evidence from here.

Exactly!

Without Evidence, Democrats call it an accident

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

See how that works? Do they have evidence that it was an accident?

You are the accuser that something was nefarious.

The proof is on you.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee
unsubstantiated — like most everything else.

Like the votes in Atlanta that were just wiped from the voting machine so they couldn't be audited.

Has wrong doing been proven in court?

I’ve seen plenty of accusations on ATS, but actual proof seems to be elusive.

What would you consider proof?

By the courts.

By the courts what? What do you consider evidence? That was a dense answer.

Seriously?

Proven in a court if law — is not that complicated.

So, if fraud is proven in a court of law, you will apologise and admit you were wrong?

I noticed you missed this question, most likely by "accident." But you still haven't answered it. Why is that?


TCB