Quote from: T Hunt on April 23, 2021, 08:45:17 AM
https://hereistheevidence.com/
But we already know that he did win. You do acknowledge that the facts and evidence prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that trumps landslide was stolen by millions of votes right?

I haven't seen any proof of widespread voter fraud.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 23, 2021, 09:19:26 AM
I haven't seen any proof of widespread voter fraud.

Its been nice knowing you....

Someone here has not watched a single Lindell documentary. 


Camera 3....  Man, that's a lot of ballots! 

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 23, 2021, 09:19:26 AM
I haven't seen any proof of widespread voter fraud.

I haven't seen any "proof" of voter integrity either although THAT doesn't matter to the Marxists. The anomalies and statistical impossibilities don't bother Democrats apparently. Had the Republicans cheated, paid millions of tax dollars to Dominion, harvested illegal ballots, demanded mail in ballots and wanted absentee ballots favoring non-citizens, the Democrats would have a VERY different perspective. It's funny how the outcome of the election determines whether "proof" is seen or needed by Democrats...

Quote from: RV on April 23, 2021, 09:31:17 AM
I haven't seen any "proof" of voter integrity either although THAT doesn't matter to the Marxists. The anomalies and statistical impossibilities don't bother Democrats apparently. Had the Republicans cheated, paid millions of tax dollars to Dominion, harvested illegal ballots, demanded mail in ballots and wanted absentee ballots favoring non-citizens, the Democrats would have a VERY different perspective. It's funny how the outcome of the election determines whether "proof" is seen or needed by Democrats...

People are caught committing voter fraud all the time, but it's in small amounts.  The largest instance I'm aware of, I believe, was about 250.

I'm sure I didn't see everything that was supposedly voter fraud, but the allegations, particularly from Trump & Co. were all proven to be false.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 23, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
People are caught committing voter fraud all the time, but it's in small amounts.  The largest instance I'm aware of, I believe, was about 250.

I'm sure I didn't see everything that was supposedly voter fraud, but the allegations, particularly from Trump & Co. were all proven to be false.

No they were not, the courts refused to see the evidence!

Quote from: Solar on April 23, 2021, 09:58:30 AM
No they were not, the courts refused to see the evidence!

Well, most of the lawsuits weren't focused on fraud.  It was more questioning procedural items within the states like the legality of governors making changes outside of the state legislature, or questioning whether changes were constitutional.  Because of that narrow scope, they weren't permitted to submit "fraud" evidence.

In two states where they were given standing (Michigan and Wisconsin), it didn't go well for Trump's attorneys.

THE (real) President has been briefed on audit.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 23, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
People are caught committing voter fraud all the time, but it's in small amounts.  The largest instance I'm aware of, I believe, was about 250.

I'm sure I didn't see everything that was supposedly voter fraud, but the allegations, particularly from Trump & Co. were all proven to be false.

Well, that's the narrative anyway. Obviously the Democrats define "proven" differently than what's in the dictionary and vastly differently than millions of American voters define it as well. If there really was no wrongdoing then the courts should have heard the evidence and ruled on the cases. As it is, the cases were not heard, the evidence was not looked at and the cases were avoided by the courts altogether. The wrongdoing is compounded when the courts won't even LOOK at the evidence much less the MOUNTAINS of witness statements. It's basically telling WITNESSES that their testimony and statements mean nothing compared to the Democrat agenda.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 23, 2021, 10:22:30 AM
Well, most of the lawsuits weren't focused on fraud.  It was more questioning procedural items within the states like the legality of governors making changes outside of the state legislature, or questioning whether changes were constitutional.  Because of that narrow scope, they weren't permitted to submit "fraud" evidence.

In two states where they were given standing (Michigan and Wisconsin), it didn't go well for Trump's attorneys.

Well good, you did some actual research and discovered you were wrong. You're learning.

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 23, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
People are caught committing voter fraud all the time, but it's in small amounts.  The largest instance I'm aware of, I believe, was about 250.

No the largest instance was 2020, when many people, including rudy, caught the dems straight up cheating in the election with mountains and mountains of evidence presented at public hearings and online.

QuoteI'm sure I didn't see everything that was supposedly voter fraud, but the allegations, particularly from Trump & Co. were all proven to be false.

How can that be true when not a single court looked at the evidence? If you think any did then please show us proof here. But no, not a single court looked at the evidence. That is more proof of the deepstate.

Quote from: RV on April 23, 2021, 12:14:56 PM
Well, that's the narrative anyway.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Quote
Obviously the Democrats define "proven" differently than what's in the dictionary and vastly differently than millions of American voters define it as well.

Voter fraud cases are run through the courts just like any other crime.

Quote
If there really was no wrongdoing then the courts should have heard the evidence and ruled on the cases.

If the situation of alleged voter fraud is reviewed, as they all were, and there's no reason to suspect fraud, why waste the courts time?  Imagine if every case, regardless of what the investigation turned up, was sent through the courts.

Quote
As it is, the cases were not heard, the evidence was not looked at and the cases were avoided by the courts altogether. The wrongdoing is compounded when the courts won't even LOOK at the evidence much less the MOUNTAINS of witness statements. It's basically telling WITNESSES that their testimony and statements mean nothing compared to the Democrat agenda.

There's a reality that many people see things that they believe are voter fraud, due to their lack of knowledge about the process.  The example that comes to mind is the video of the woman sitting at a table, filling out ballot after ballot.  That was supposedly the smoking gun of voter fraud when, in reality, it was nothing more than the normal processing of damaged ballots.  The guy across from the woman was reading off what was on the damaged ballot, the woman was duplicating it and damaged one was put aside when finished.

I think we all saw the video of the "interesting" lady testifying with Giuliani in Michigan when Michigan gave Trump's legal team a chance to present their case.  What was missed is what happened in Wisconsin when Trump's legal team was given standing:

A Stunning Passage from the Latest Court Rejection of Team Trump

The most telling aspect of the Wisconsin federal district court's rejection of another Trump campaign lawsuit on Saturday is so obvious it is easy to miss. And no, it is not that the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge, Brett H. Ludwig, or that it was done on the merits.

After all that's been said over the last six weeks, this fleeting passage near the start of the court's workmanlike, 23-page decision and order should take our breath away (my highlighting):

      With the Electoral College meeting just days away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing,
      the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the Court.

A "stipulated set of facts," in this context, is an agreement between the lawyers for the adversary parties about what testimony witnesses would give, and/or what facts would be established, if the parties went through the process of calling witnesses and offering tangible evidence at a hearing or trial.

In a real controversy, in which one or both of the parties are making hotly disputed factual claims, there are few if any stipulations. For example, a defendant who vehemently denies that he committed stock fraud may be willing to stipulate that 20,000 shares of XYZ Corp's common stock were sold on December 14; but other than that, the defendant will demand that the adversary call the fact witnesses who claim he defrauded them so he can cross-examine. He will call his own witnesses to show what really happened, and they will be aggressively questioned, too.

Publicly, the Trump campaign has been claiming there was extensive vote fraud and law-breaking. Specifically with respect to Wisconsin, President Trump tweeted on November 28: "The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally . . . We have found many illegal votes. Stay tuned!" The campaign further maintained that the recount it demanded would "show somewhere around 100,000 illegal ballots in the two counties that Biden carried" (i.e., Milwaukee and Dane).

This is in addition to the innumerable times the president and his surrogates have asserted that they were being systematically prevented from proving massive fraud and illegality. The courts and state officials, we've been told, have invoked legal technicalities, such as the supposed lack of standing to sue, in order to stop the campaign from calling witnesses and introducing voluminous documentary evidence.

So what happened in Wisconsin?

Judge Ludwig denied the state's claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president's counsel basically said: Never mind, we don't need to present all our proof . . . we'll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.

In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/a-stunning-passage-from-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/

Quote from: p1tchblack on April 23, 2021, 01:06:36 PM
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Voter fraud cases are run through the courts just like any other crime.
If the situation of alleged voter fraud is reviewed, as they all were, and there's no reason to suspect fraud, why waste the courts time?  Imagine if every case, regardless of what the investigation turned up, was sent through the courts.

There's a reality that many people see things that they believe are voter fraud, due to their lack of knowledge about the process.  The example that comes to mind is the video of the woman sitting at a table, filling out ballot after ballot.  That was supposedly the smoking gun of voter fraud when, in reality, it was nothing more than the normal processing of damaged ballots.  The guy across from the woman was reading off what was on the damaged ballot, the woman was duplicating it and damaged one was put aside when finished.

I think we all saw the video of the "interesting" lady testifying with Giuliani in Michigan when Michigan gave Trump's legal team a chance to present their case.  What was missed is what happened in Wisconsin when Trump's legal team was given standing:

A Stunning Passage from the Latest Court Rejection of Team Trump

The most telling aspect of the Wisconsin federal district court's rejection of another Trump campaign lawsuit on Saturday is so obvious it is easy to miss. And no, it is not that the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge, Brett H. Ludwig, or that it was done on the merits.

After all that's been said over the last six weeks, this fleeting passage near the start of the court's workmanlike, 23-page decision and order should take our breath away (my highlighting):

      With the Electoral College meeting just days away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing,
      the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the Court.

A "stipulated set of facts," in this context, is an agreement between the lawyers for the adversary parties about what testimony witnesses would give, and/or what facts would be established, if the parties went through the process of calling witnesses and offering tangible evidence at a hearing or trial.

In a real controversy, in which one or both of the parties are making hotly disputed factual claims, there are few if any stipulations. For example, a defendant who vehemently denies that he committed stock fraud may be willing to stipulate that 20,000 shares of XYZ Corp's common stock were sold on December 14; but other than that, the defendant will demand that the adversary call the fact witnesses who claim he defrauded them so he can cross-examine. He will call his own witnesses to show what really happened, and they will be aggressively questioned, too.

Publicly, the Trump campaign has been claiming there was extensive vote fraud and law-breaking. Specifically with respect to Wisconsin, President Trump tweeted on November 28: "The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally . . . We have found many illegal votes. Stay tuned!" The campaign further maintained that the recount it demanded would "show somewhere around 100,000 illegal ballots in the two counties that Biden carried" (i.e., Milwaukee and Dane).

This is in addition to the innumerable times the president and his surrogates have asserted that they were being systematically prevented from proving massive fraud and illegality. The courts and state officials, we've been told, have invoked legal technicalities, such as the supposed lack of standing to sue, in order to stop the campaign from calling witnesses and introducing voluminous documentary evidence.

So what happened in Wisconsin?

Judge Ludwig denied the state's claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president's counsel basically said: Never mind, we don't need to present all our proof . . . we'll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.

In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/a-stunning-passage-from-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/

So you dont have a CREDIBLE source then?

Judge just ordered a halt on the audit from 5 PM Pacific Time today (Friday, April 23, 2021), until 12 PM Monday next week.

https://www.youmaker.com/v/nBej2xyMKngL

Quote from: T Hunt on April 23, 2021, 01:12:23 PM
So you dont have a CREDIBLE source then?

Credible sources for what?  Trump's legal team was given exactly what they wanted in Wisconsin - a chance to present their fraud evidence.  They discussed what Trump's legal team, and their witnesses, were going to present in a trial/hearing and, in the end, both sides agreed that there was no reason to move forward.  There was no fraud.  What the "witness" believed was fraud was simply the normal processing of ballots.

If Trump's legal team conceding isn't a credible source, what is?