President Trump Personally Sues 21 Wisconsin Officials and Politicians for Election Law Violations.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Georgia just verified the results of the third official recount.

Spoiler: Biden won Georgia for the third time.

Georgia Secretary of State

And they still refused to do any signature verifications whatsoever.

You can count the same fraudulent votes as many times as you want and come up with the same number, yes, that is true.

Once again, the signatures were validated as required by Georgia law.

Atlanta Journal Constitution

Before election officials counted absentee ballots in Georgia, they checked voter signatures to help make sure that ballots came from the voters who returned them.


That verification process reviewed signatures on absentee ballot envelopes when they were received at county election offices. Then ballots are separated from envelopes to protect the secret ballot, leaving no way to link voters to the candidates they chose. The right to cast a ballot in secret is guaranteed by the state Constitution.

Next?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Once again, the signatures were validated as required by Georgia law.

They can say it all day long. The dozens of witnesses saying otherwise, and the fact that republican poll watchers were, like many other places, prevented from actually witnessing the mail-in ballots being opened.

So... no.

Next?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Once again, the signatures were validated as required by Georgia law.

They can say it all day long. The dozens of witnesses saying otherwise, and the fact that republican poll watchers were, like many other places, prevented from actually witnessing the mail-in ballots being opened.

So... no.

Next?

So, you were proven wrong and now you want to pivot to the feelz.

Georgia is following her laws and the laws of the United States.

Dozens of claims to the contrary, unverified at every turn, do not matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Imagine if you were a Trump supporter and lived in Georgia? How pissed would you be right now after they wasted your time AGAIN?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, you were proven wrong

You cite the AJC and think you proved anything? Rotflmao!

Georgia is following her laws and the laws of the United States.

And that is the point. The law is one thing. Whether or not those election poll workers in these large democrat stromghold cities actually followed the law is what is being demonstrated to be a big fat 'no way jose'.

Dozens of claims to the contrary, unverified at every turn, do not matter.

They are verified though - in the form of sworn affidavits. There is plenty of video of illegal actions too.

Anyway, you are obviously just lost, so, good luck with that. Come talk to me after Trump is sworn in for his second term, and I'll do my best to give you a Trump cookie.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Imagine if you were a Trump supporter and lived in Georgia? How pissed would you be right now after they wasted your time AGAIN?

Well, here's the thing I'd be pissed about, now that you've asked.

These jack-wagons are taking money from Georgians on false pretenses, and their best suggestion thus far as been "Don't vote in January."

If I'm a Republican and their "expert advice" is to hand Biden the Congress as well?

Honestly AM, it boggles the mind.

a reply to: tanstaafl
What you going to give if he loses?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, you were proven wrong

You cite the AJC and think you proved anything? Rotflmao!

Georgia is following her laws and the laws of the United States.

And that is the point. The law is one thing. Whether or not those election poll workers in these large democrat stromghold cities actually followed the law is what is being demonstrated to be a big fat 'no way jose'.

Dozens of claims to the contrary, unverified at every turn, do not matter.

They are verified though - in the form of sworn affidavits. There is plenty of video of illegal actions too.

Anyway, you are obviously just lost, so, good luck with that. Come talk to me after Trump is sworn in for his second term, and I'll do my best to give you a Trump cookie.

That an affidavit has been sworn to does not corroborate the contents of the affidavit. Judges are rejecting these nonsense affidavits.

a reply to: tanstaafl

If you want to try to damn the source, you need to offer counter evidence. Not your strong suit.

Affidavits are not evidence for the thousandth time. Every case that has been brought based on these so-called affidavits has been lost.

All you're offering are opinions, and that has zero value in regard to the discussion.

You were wrong about the signature verification, you're wrong about the legal weight of affidavits ... like the Trump team, et. al. you're batting zero.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
That an affidavit has been sworn to does not corroborate the contents of the affidavit.

No, no, but it subjects them to penalties of perjury if it is determined they are lying.

Judges are rejecting these nonsense affidavits.

Ah, thanks, so I'm sure that you can point me to the perjury prosecutions that are no ongoing. I look forward to seeing these liars, who are committing the heinous crime of attempting to disenfranchise millions of people, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

No? Not even one?

Ok, so how about this video proof of not 'voter fraud', but 'election fraud', in Georgia? Not good enough for you either I suppose... for anyone interested in real, actual evidence, slide to the 14:20 time mark:

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

If you want to try to damn the source,

I live in Georgia. The AJC has been a fake news tabloid for as long as I can remember.

you need to offer counter evidence. Not your strong suit.

Affidavits are not evidence for the thousandth time.

For the millionth time, you are wrong.

Every case that has been brought based on these so-called affidavits has been lost.

Yep. And Bush lost all 50 cases brought in lower courts before winning in the Supreme Court.

And not one person has been charged with perjury. If these people are lying, they are guilty of trying to disenfranchise millions of voters, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - and yes, I mean that.

You were wrong about the signature verification,

Was I? By all means, please explain to me how any signature verification was done here in Atlanta when this happened (slide to the 14:20 timestamp):

you're wrong about the legal weight of affidavits

Nope. They are legal evidence (contrary to your silly, uninformed, easily and already disproven claim that they aren't), admissible in court. No one has been charged with perjury

like the Trump team, et. al. you're batting zero.

The Trump team has only filed a few lawsuits (all of those others you and others try to claim they lost weren't filed by them), but so what? Again, Bush lost all 50 of his cases before winning in the Supreme Court.

Trump is exposing the corruption the only way he can, and it will not be long before even the likes of you can no longer ignore what happened.

You want to talk about foreign interference in our elections? China owns 75% of Dominion, and both they and Iran accessed the machines that everyone claims weren't connected to the internet (they were, and there is proof).

What is coming won't be pretty, but it is necessary, if we want to keep our Republic.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
That an affidavit has been sworn to does not corroborate the contents of the affidavit.

No, no, but it subjects them to penalties of perjury if it is determined they are lying.

Judges are rejecting these nonsense affidavits.

Ah, thanks, so I'm sure that you can point me to the perjury prosecutions that are no ongoing. I look forward to seeing these liars, who are committing the heinous crime of attempting to disenfranchise millions of people, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

No? Not even one?

Ok, so how about this video proof of not 'voter fraud', but 'election fraud', in Georgia? Not good enough for you either I suppose... for anyone interested in real, actual evidence, slide to the 14:20 time mark:

Sworn affidavits are very frequently discredited and not believed in court with no one being charged with perjury. People make mistakes, people misremember, people misinterpret events, and yes, sometimes people lie. The fact that you have a sworn affidavit means very little and will not be enough to sustain legal cases claiming fraud.

you're wrong about the legal weight of affidavits
Nope. They are legal evidence (contrary to your silly, uninformed, easily and already disproven claim that they aren't), admissible in court. No one has been charged with perjury

They are not automatically admissible and must meet basic requirements of reliability and admissibility before being admitted. The lack of perjury charges means absolutely nothing: (1) see my above comment (perjury charges do not result merely because a sworn affidavit is proven untrue or is not credited), (2) most of this stuff has never and will never be put before a judge

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I look forward to seeing these liars, who are committing the heinous crime of attempting to disenfranchise millions of people, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

No? Not even one?

No, because the affidavits don't contain sworn testimony that can be verified as they are mostly personal opinion, supposition and heresay, not saying anything that can be considered a lie. (Like the fella who believed the military was Right Wing and testified his shock at lots of Milirary Personnel voting for Biden.) You can't prosecute someone for an opinion.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Ok, so how about this video proof of not 'voter fraud', but 'election fraud', in Georgia? Not good enough for you either I suppose... for anyone interested in real, actual evidence, slide to the 14:20 time mark:

You can thank carewemust for this link!

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Gosh, everything OP provides as "evidence" comes from Twitter, and I had been led to understand that Twitter has silenced all "conservatives."

Isn't that odd.

Trump's various suits have had exactly zero traction. What's the tally now, 0-40?

I'll just be glad to see some of the evidence for these claims; none has been provided thus far.

Perhaps, this time ....

That zero in the left column is the quickest way to get this to the Supreme Court. Let me know when Trump is 0-1,460 so he can finally catch up with all the failed "gotcha" moments the democrats had each day of his presidency. That's not counting the 100+ before he won the election.

Newsflash: when that number of Courts and that number of Judges say that the case before them is a nothingburger and that Team Trump is all mouth and no trousers, the SCOTUS is not going to even listen to the case. Not going to happen. SCOTUS picks the cases it reviews very carefully and Roberts is not going to touch this matter with a bargepole. This is not 2000. The circumstances are totally different.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Affidavits are not evidence for the thousandth time.

Affidavits are absolutely evidence. They are written testimony.

Cases are won and lost every day in courthouses around the country based solely on affidavits.

Been a lawyer almost 30 years. I could be wrong.

But I'm not.

They simply need to select by lottery of registered voters who submitted a vote this year, 25,000 people from each state, all 50, and then compare those to the election day ballots making it mandatory those people submit their ballots immediately and use serial numbered signed ballots with envelopes. 25000 is more than enough that if chosen at random from those who voted, it has no reason to not reflect the election results. I guarantee where it was so often 51% 49%, you would see as low as 25/75 and no matter how the sample is chosen that simply cannot be reconciled by any means and that's the only way Americans, I hope at least, will ever accept the president.

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Affidavits are not evidence for the thousandth time.

Affidavits are absolutely evidence. They are written testimony.

Cases are won and lost every day in courthouses around the country based solely on affidavits.

Been a lawyer almost 30 years. I could be wrong.

But I'm not.

No, you're totally right. Affidavits are form of evidence. The problem is that the affidavits that have been submitted thus far are either not admissible or lack the basic requirements of reliability and are not credited.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Affidavits are not evidence for the thousandth time.

Affidavits are absolutely evidence. They are written testimony.

Cases are won and lost every day in courthouses around the country based solely on affidavits.

Been a lawyer almost 30 years. I could be wrong.

But I'm not.

No, you're totally right. Affidavits are form of evidence. The problem is that the affidavits that have been submitted thus far are either not admissible or lack the basic requirements of reliability and are not credited.

I know I'm right.

I don't know why the content of the affidavits has been rejected by the courts, but I doubt you can say that *all* the affidavits submitted are not admissible or credible.

You do understand there's politics at play here, right?

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Affidavits are not evidence for the thousandth time.

Affidavits are absolutely evidence. They are written testimony.

Cases are won and lost every day in courthouses around the country based solely on affidavits.

Been a lawyer almost 30 years. I could be wrong.

But I'm not.

No, you're totally right. Affidavits are form of evidence. The problem is that the affidavits that have been submitted thus far are either not admissible or lack the basic requirements of reliability and are not credited.

I know I'm right.

I don't know why the content of the affidavits has been rejected by the courts, but I doubt you can say that *all* the affidavits submitted are not admissible or credible.

You do understand there's politics at play here, right?

No, there's not. Not a single affidavit alleging fraud has yet to be credited by any[/I] judge. That is not politics.