It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: VforVendettea
a reply to: IndieA Bad link. please repost.
originally posted by: 1947boomer
originally posted by: network dude
I think I can predict the outcome here. If this isn't won in a court battle, it is nothing, and nothing in the report will be real, unless it is somehow put to a court and won. No, I don't know how that might work, I just know what the opposition will say, loudly and often.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to get tested in court.
The first step would be to subject his results to some kind of peer review. For example, at one point he was claiming he was going to find bamboo fibers in the ballots--thereby proving they came from China. If he didn't find any, he should state that clearly. If he claims to have found some, he should give some to an independent third party for verification. He should also explain why they would be traceable to China, etc. etc.
If he claims to have found statistical anomalies, he should let professional statisticians go over the results. He should also accept the fact that statistical arguments are basically incapable of identifying any individual actors.
If he claims that evidence was uncovered with his magical "kinematic artifact detector" he needs to explain exactly how that device works and let third parties inspect it and run control cases with it--otherwise he might as well say he got the results with a Ouija board.
Also, note that he has no standing to bring criminal charges against anyone--Jovan Pulitzer is not a prosecutor, he's just a random street lunatic.
The most he could do is to bring a civil case against someone for damages. To do that, he would first have to show "standing" (meaning that he was personally damaged) and then identify someone or some governmental body to claim did the damage and finally make a demand for some kind of restitution for that damage that the judge could actually grant.
Please note that a judge cannot "nullify" an election that occurred 20 months in the past.
If he ever gets to court, his evidence would be challenged by the defense in all the ways that peer reviewers would (and more). That's why it should be given critical scrutiny first.
originally posted by: MiddleInsite
I don't need to see anything go to court.
What I DO need to see is real EVIDENCE. OK. I don't need a court to tell me what's what if you can show me yourself.
So, SHOW ME.
But if you do have evidence, I WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE THAT TO COURT.
Some of us are not unreasonable, but saying it, doesn't make it so. IF there is fraud, you should be able to show it. You don't need a court; you just need a "platform". And there are plenty available. Like Fox, Truth Social, or even here.
But guys, I'm still waiting for the Durham bombshell and the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell. So, I'm a bit skeptical. And please, we all know Hunter is a loser. But that's not illegal. Show me something, anything that's ILLEGAL.
And while you're looking for EVIDENCE, tune into the January 6th hearings that most of you are avoiding watching. LOTS OF EVIDENCE THERE. Very informative.
a reply to: network dude
originally posted by: PurpleFox
Keep fighting the good fight everyone! The truth will always win!
Source: justthenews.com...
Newly uncovered records reportedly show over 19,000 ballots in Arizona's Maricopa County in the 2020 elections were counted despite having been received after the deadline to be considered.
Arizona's electoral votes were counted in favor of then-Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, who won the presidency by 74 electoral votes. Biden won Arizona by about 10,500 votes.
The 19,000 ballots might have changed the outcome of the Arizona race, giving it to then-GOP incumbent President, Donald Trump.