AG Garland will investigate the State election audits

[asaratis]

I also want you to give me the source for the last sentence.

Watch the Mike Lindell video "Absolute Proof"

Please tell me why people who are perfectly willing to assert voter fraud happened after all that would suddenly be convinced it won't happen if you restrict voting?

I don't recall claiming that all voter fraud would cease. The proposed elections rules changes are designed to make illegal voting harder to accomplish, not to make legal voting harder. Election fraud has been around ever since elections have been around. There's always a possibility for some fraud to occur.

The massive fraud that occurred in 2020 was mainly due to millions of mailed out ballots, relaxing of signature verification procedures, lack of rigid postmark requirements, lack of chain of possession records, ballot harvesting and internet connectivity of the voting systems.

 

[forkup]

The Gateway Pundit article was Published January 24, 2021 at 10:51am. Click on the link within that article and you get the updated chart.

(Public Version 7-20-21)

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

Nice try on the court cases you listed. They are not among the cases presented in my posting. Not only are you goofy, you're disingenuous.

Yes, they are. For instance, my second ruling was number 17 on your list.

And even if it wasn't, if the premise of the article is that in cases of election fraud on behalf of Trump no cases where fraud is alleged are allowed to present evidence and I can give you rulings in which judges ask for evidence in other cases, the premise would still be invalidated. The only difference it would make is that your list is incomplete.

Calling me goofy and disingenuous, after I gave you the respect and took out the time to provide you with actual primary sources in order to rebuke your claim on substance, shows an unwillingness to actually debate me on substance. If that's how you want to roll, that is fine. But I will stop engaging you then.

As I stated before I'm here to actually debate. You have shown to at least attempt to do so yourself. That's why I took out the time to pick my sourcing with care. Name-calling is not worth that type of engagement.

 

[asaratis]

Yes, they are. For instance, my second ruling was number 17 on your list.

And even if it wasn't, if the premise of the article is that in cases of election fraud on behalf of Trump no cases where fraud is alleged are allowed to present evidence and I can give you rulings in which judges ask for evidence in other cases, the premise would still be invalidated. The only difference it would make is that your list is incomplete.

Laughable indeed! "I'm right, even if I'm wrong!"

#17 on my list shows:

	17	Donald J. Trump for Pres., Inc. v. Boockvar, No. 4:20-cv-02078 (M.D. PA)	11/09/20	RULES	NO	Pennsylvania	Insufficient poll watching of absentee ballots, etc.	Dismissed - Lacked Standing	Case Not Fully Heard	11/27/20	Closed

The statement in the article referred to the specific cases listed. You failed to refute that.

Calling me goofy and disingenuous, after I gave you the respect and took out the time to provide you with actual primary sources in order to rebuke your claim on substance, shows an unwillingness to actually debate me on substance. If that's how you want to roll, that is fine. But I will stop engaging you then.

Thanks.

As I stated before I'm here to actually debate. You have shown to at least attempt to do so yourself. That's why I took out the time to pick my sourcing with care. Name-calling is not worth that type of engagement.

Picking sources and making claims that do not apply to the actual conversation is deflection...a logical fallacy.

Buh Bye!

 

[forkup]

#17 on my list shows:

The court dismissed the case, characterizing it as "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

This was number 2 in my post. And it rebukes the claim of the article that the claimants weren't allowed to show evidence since this judge specifically said that the claim was unsupported by evidence.

 

[asaratis]

The court dismissed the case, characterizing it as "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

This was number 2 in my post. And it rebukes the claim of the article that the claimants weren't allowed to show evidence since this judge specifically said that the claim was unsupported by evidence.

Damn! I thought you quit.

You second case was Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.

#17 was in Pennsylvania.

Get lost, troll.

 

[forkup]

Damn! I thought you quit.

You second case was Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.

#17 was in Pennsylvania.

Get lost, troll.

I was counting the links provided in post 96, the one I used to directly rebuke your gateway article. First was Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit (2020), second was Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al., Defendants. Or... your number seventeen.

The one cited in an article claiming no cases existed where the plaintiffs were allowed to show evidence, and in which the judge ruled that the claims made were not supported by evidence. Something you would have known if you bothered to push your own link and actually read it.

Anyways. As I said you are starting to bore me and I've got better things to do with my time than talking to people who act obtuse and try to derail a conversation they can't win on substance.

 

[asaratis]

I was counting the links provided in post 96, the one I used to directly rebuke your gateway article. First was Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit (2020), second was Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al., Defendants. Or... your number seventeen.

Your post 96 reads like the third link is the second case you're citing. My apologies for misreading.
(Rebut and rebuke are not the same.)

The one cited in an article claiming no cases existed where the plaintiffs were allowed to show evidence, and in which the judge ruled that the claims made were not supported by evidence. Something you would have known if you bothered to push your own link and actually read it.

Yet you still fail to REBUT the Gateway article.

The claim in the Gateway article is:
In ZERO of the 72 cases where illegal voting is alleged has evidence been allowed to be presented

On page 10 of your linked document, the MEMORANDUM OPINION of the judge, the evidentiary hearing was indeed scheduled but subsequently cancelled and the case was dismissed for lack of standing. As noted in the wiseenergy.com chart, the case WAS NOT FULLY HEARD.


The judge said:

At the conclusion of the argument, I
determined that an evidentiary hearing (previously scheduled to take place on
November 19, 2020) was no longer needed and cancelled that proceeding.

Ergo, no evidence was allowed to be presented.

Try again.

Anyways. As I said you are starting to bore me and I've got better things to do with my time than talking to people who act obtuse and try to derail a conversation they can't win on substance.

You describe yourself well.

 

[forkup]

On page 10 of your linked document, the MEMORANDUM OPINION of the judge, the evidentiary hearing was indeed scheduled but subsequently cancelled and the case was dismissed for lack of standing. As noted in the wiseenergy.com chart, the case WAS NOT FULLY HEARD.

The judge RULED on the validity evidence, he found it... wanting. This means the evidence was presented because you know.... he was able to find it... wanting?

 

[asaratis]

The judge RULED on the validity evidence, he found it... wanting. This means the evidence was presented because you know.... he was able to find it... wanting?

Quote the judge's words in your link along with the page number.

 

[wamose]

Garland thinks all his underwear are yellow in the front and brown in the back to make it easier to put them on properly. You don't want that dweeb investigating anything. He's a totally biased fool. That's why Obama wanted him on the SC.

 

[easyt65]

Joe Biden's AG Merrick Garland says that he will investigate the State election audits.

BREAKING: AG Merrick Garland Announces that His DOJ Will Scrutinize Any Post-Election Audits for Evidence of Voting Law Violations! | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The corrupt DOJ and its FBI totally ignored the flood of election crimes in the 2020 election. So it’s no surprise that now the corrupt AG decides to threaten any person who is involved in election audits to prevent them from looking into the election crimes and fraud that were committed.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

1) That means that he is investigating his party, his boss and himself......does that seem unethical, do you trust the Dems to investigate themselves?
2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

View attachment 513279

Garland will investigate the election audits but not the election....

Bwuhahahahahaha.......

Every passing day proves we dodged a bullet when that SOB did not get put on the USSC.

 

[justoffal]

Joe Biden's AG Merrick Garland says that he will investigate the State election audits.

BREAKING: AG Merrick Garland Announces that His DOJ Will Scrutinize Any Post-Election Audits for Evidence of Voting Law Violations! | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The corrupt DOJ and its FBI totally ignored the flood of election crimes in the 2020 election. So it’s no surprise that now the corrupt AG decides to threaten any person who is involved in election audits to prevent them from looking into the election crimes and fraud that were committed.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

1) That means that he is investigating his party, his boss and himself......does that seem unethical, do you trust the Dems to investigate themselves?
2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

View attachment 513279

 

[justoffal]

Joe Biden's AG Merrick Garland says that he will investigate the State election audits.

BREAKING: AG Merrick Garland Announces that His DOJ Will Scrutinize Any Post-Election Audits for Evidence of Voting Law Violations! | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The corrupt DOJ and its FBI totally ignored the flood of election crimes in the 2020 election. So it’s no surprise that now the corrupt AG decides to threaten any person who is involved in election audits to prevent them from looking into the election crimes and fraud that were committed.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

1) That means that he is investigating his party, his boss and himself......does that seem unethical, do you trust the Dems to investigate themselves?
2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

View attachment 513279

He's not going to investigate anything he's going to make an effort to shut them all down because they're getting too close. As long as these things are open and running they won't be able to get the legislation through the Federal seats that they want to codify cheating. Short sighted idiots don't realize that if they create a system like that it will eventually it will work against them also. They never do realize that with anything.

 

[Slade3200]

Biden and Garland should not be allowed to investigate themselves.
View attachment 513283

How would they be investigating themselves?!

 

[asaratis]

How would they be investigating themselves?!

They are the cheaters that are deathly afraid of truth examination of the balloting and counting procedures. That is why they opposed forensic audits.

 

[Slade3200]

They are the cheaters that are deathly afraid of truth examination of the balloting and counting procedures. That is why they opposed forensic audits.

You think Joe Biden and Garland cheated?! That’s quite the claim. How exactly did they cheat?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Joe Biden's AG Merrick Garland says that he will investigate the State election audits.

BREAKING: AG Merrick Garland Announces that His DOJ Will Scrutinize Any Post-Election Audits for Evidence of Voting Law Violations! | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

The corrupt DOJ and its FBI totally ignored the flood of election crimes in the 2020 election. So it’s no surprise that now the corrupt AG decides to threaten any person who is involved in election audits to prevent them from looking into the election crimes and fraud that were committed.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

1) That means that he is investigating his party, his boss and himself......does that seem unethical, do you trust the Dems to investigate themselves?
2) Shouldn't the DOJ be helping the States investigate election crimes instead of trying to discredit them?

View attachment 513279

Nope. The audits are investigating his boss and his party. Garland wants to investigate the AUDIT.

 

[task0778]

Garland wants to investigate the AUDIT.

What he wants is to denigrate and diminish as much as possible any and all audits that reveal evidence of election/voter fraud. Garland will diligently search for ANYTHING he can use to cast doubt on the audit findings, and the media will assist in throwing shade on every aspect of it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What he wants is to denigrate and diminish as much as possible any and all audits that reveal evidence of election/voter fraud. Garland will diligently search for ANYTHING he can use to cast doubt on the audit findings, and the media will assist in throwing shade on every aspect of it.

Yes.

 

[asaratis]

You think Joe Biden and Garland cheated?! That’s quite the claim. How exactly did they cheat?

The entire Democrat Party is afraid of forensic audits because THEY CHEATED.