‘First-Hand Witness’ Says Smartmatic, Dominion Were Built to Change Election Results

[colfax_m]

Poor Coleytroll -

Aw, can’t take rational criticism? I guess Powell didn’t tell you the answer to this and you’re not exactly the “think for yourself” kind of guy.

What a lemming.

 

[Billiejeens]

Poor Coleytroll -

Aw, can’t take rational criticism? I guess Powell didn’t tell you the answer to this and you’re not exactly the “think for yourself” kind of guy.

What a lemming.

Here's a lemming.

The votes were all legal - (although the mere thought of that being mathematically possible should earn someone a straight jacket)
Votes can't be rigged on these machines.
It has to be human error.
Voting machines can't be rigged, the technology does not exist.
Me - the technology does exist - here look.
I will not look - it didn't happen here -
(hands over ears) - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

 

[colfax_m]

Poor Coleytroll -

Aw, can’t take rational criticism? I guess Powell didn’t tell you the answer to this and you’re not exactly the “think for yourself” kind of guy.

What a lemming.

Here's a lemming.

The votes were all legal - (although the mere thought of that being mathematically possible should earn someone a straight jacket)
Votes can't be rigged on these machines.
It has to be human error.
Voting machines can't be rigged, the technology does not exist.
Me - the technology does exist - here look.
I will not look - it didn't happen here -
(hands over ears) - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

For starters, you need to prove the election was hacked if you want to throw out the results. Showing it “could be hacked” is not going to cut it.

Second, the evidence showing “these machines” could be hacked is reductive. At best, Powell is showing that machines could be hacked that weren’t used in the election and using that to cast doubt. Again, Smartmatic machines weren’t used. Dominion machines were. These are different.

It’s like going to court to claim a bank was robbed because one time a bank in Venezuela was robbed. It’s idiotic and it’s going to fail in court because it lacks all rational basis.

But winning in court is no longer their intention.

 

[Billiejeens]

Poor Coleytroll -

Aw, can’t take rational criticism? I guess Powell didn’t tell you the answer to this and you’re not exactly the “think for yourself” kind of guy.

What a lemming.

Here's a lemming.

The votes were all legal - (although the mere thought of that being mathematically possible should earn someone a straight jacket)
Votes can't be rigged on these machines.
It has to be human error.
Voting machines can't be rigged, the technology does not exist.
Me - the technology does exist - here look.
I will not look - it didn't happen here -
(hands over ears) - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

For starters, you need to prove the election was hacked if you want to throw out the results. Showing it “could be hacked” is not going to cut it.

Second, the evidence showing “these machines” could be hacked is reductive. At best, Powell is showing that machines could be hacked that weren’t used in the election and using that to cast doubt. Again, Smartmatic machines weren’t used. Dominion machines were. These are different.

It’s like going to court to claim a bank was robbed because one time a bank in Venezuela was robbed. It’s idiotic and it’s going to fail in court because it lacks all rational basis.

But winning in court is no longer their intention.

More - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

 

[colfax_m]

Poor Coleytroll -

Aw, can’t take rational criticism? I guess Powell didn’t tell you the answer to this and you’re not exactly the “think for yourself” kind of guy.

What a lemming.

Here's a lemming.

The votes were all legal - (although the mere thought of that being mathematically possible should earn someone a straight jacket)
Votes can't be rigged on these machines.
It has to be human error.
Voting machines can't be rigged, the technology does not exist.
Me - the technology does exist - here look.
I will not look - it didn't happen here -
(hands over ears) - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

For starters, you need to prove the election was hacked if you want to throw out the results. Showing it “could be hacked” is not going to cut it.

Second, the evidence showing “these machines” could be hacked is reductive. At best, Powell is showing that machines could be hacked that weren’t used in the election and using that to cast doubt. Again, Smartmatic machines weren’t used. Dominion machines were. These are different.

It’s like going to court to claim a bank was robbed because one time a bank in Venezuela was robbed. It’s idiotic and it’s going to fail in court because it lacks all rational basis.

But winning in court is no longer their intention.

More - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

Again, if you had the capacity to think for yourself, you’d have a rational rebuttal.

But you don’t. You’re a lemming.

Powell and Giuliani claim that Smartmatic and Dominion are running the same software. What’s the basis for this claim?

 

[Billiejeens]

Poor Coleytroll -

Aw, can’t take rational criticism? I guess Powell didn’t tell you the answer to this and you’re not exactly the “think for yourself” kind of guy.

What a lemming.

Here's a lemming.

The votes were all legal - (although the mere thought of that being mathematically possible should earn someone a straight jacket)
Votes can't be rigged on these machines.
It has to be human error.
Voting machines can't be rigged, the technology does not exist.
Me - the technology does exist - here look.
I will not look - it didn't happen here -
(hands over ears) - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

For starters, you need to prove the election was hacked if you want to throw out the results. Showing it “could be hacked” is not going to cut it.

Second, the evidence showing “these machines” could be hacked is reductive. At best, Powell is showing that machines could be hacked that weren’t used in the election and using that to cast doubt. Again, Smartmatic machines weren’t used. Dominion machines were. These are different.

It’s like going to court to claim a bank was robbed because one time a bank in Venezuela was robbed. It’s idiotic and it’s going to fail in court because it lacks all rational basis.

But winning in court is no longer their intention.

More - lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal

Again, if you had the capacity to think for yourself, you’d have a rational rebuttal.

But you don’t. You’re a lemming.

Powell and Giuliani claim that Smartmatic and Dominion are running the same software. What’s the basis for this claim?

What is you basis for denying their claim?

 

[colfax_m]

What is you basis for denying their claim?

Both companies have denied any connection to each other.

 

[Billiejeens]

What is you basis for denying their claim?

Both companies have denied any connection to each other.

Plausible deniability
Check to see if they each have a connection to a 3rd party

Democrats are supremely evil, not supremely stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

What is you basis for denying their claim?

Both companies have denied any connection to each other.

Plausible deniability
Check to see if they each have a connection to a 3rd party

Democrats are supremely evil, not supremely stupid.

Why am I checking? Giuliani and Powell are making the claim. What is the evidence for this claim?

 

[Billiejeens]

What is you basis for denying their claim?

Both companies have denied any connection to each other.

Plausible deniability
Check to see if they each have a connection to a 3rd party

Democrats are supremely evil, not supremely stupid.

Why am I checking? Giuliani and Powell are making the claim. What is the evidence for this claim?

What is your evidence against that claim?

 

[colfax_m]

What is you basis for denying their claim?

Both companies have denied any connection to each other.

Plausible deniability
Check to see if they each have a connection to a 3rd party

Democrats are supremely evil, not supremely stupid.

Why am I checking? Giuliani and Powell are making the claim. What is the evidence for this claim?

What is your evidence against that claim?

Other than the denials from both companies I don’t have any.

But that’s not how it works, certainly not how it works in court. The claimant has to provide evidence of their claims. All I’m asking is if there is any evidence for this claim?

 

[Billiejeens]

What is you basis for denying their claim?

Both companies have denied any connection to each other.

Plausible deniability
Check to see if they each have a connection to a 3rd party

Democrats are supremely evil, not supremely stupid.

Why am I checking? Giuliani and Powell are making the claim. What is the evidence for this claim?

What is your evidence against that claim?

Other than the denials from both companies I don’t have any.

But that’s not how it works, certainly not how it works in court. The claimant has to provide evidence of their claims. All I’m asking is if there is any evidence for this claim?

Why are your asking - are you The Court?

 

[colfax_m]

Why are your asking - are you The Court?

Because Giuliani and Powell are out there making this claim. You’re repeating it here. This is clearly an issue they’re bringing up for public debate and has a strong public interest.

Which means they’re claims are subject to questions. Does any evidence of this exist?

 

[Billiejeens]

Why are your asking - are you The Court?

Because Giuliani and Powell are out there making this claim. You’re repeating it here. This is clearly an issue they’re bringing up for public debate and has a strong public interest.

Which means they’re claims are subject to questions. Does any evidence of this exist?

So you are not the court.

 

[DukeU]

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you to rely on a Mark Levin interview. Trump lost. Get over it.

You just proved, without a doubt, how ignorant you are.

 

[colfax_m]

So you are not the court.

I’m not the court. If Giuliani and Powell are going to make this claim in public, they should be ready to present evidence in public. I don’t see that they have and you are evading a simple question about whether any evidence for this allegation exists.

Have you seen any evidence of this allegation?

 

[Billiejeens]

So you are not the court.

I’m not the court. If Giuliani and Powell are going to make this claim in public, they should be ready to present evidence in public. I don’t see that they have and you are evading a simple question about whether any evidence for this allegation exists.

Have you seen any evidence of this allegation?

Are you thinking that I am the Court?

 

[colfax_m]

Are you thinking that I am the Court?

Of course not. Why aren’t you asking the same question I am?

 

[Billiejeens]

Are you thinking that I am the Court?

Of course not. Why aren’t you asking the same question I am?

I understood you to say that these were legal matters to be settled in court -
Is that not right?

 

[colfax_m]

I understood you to say that these were legal matters to be settled in court -
Is that not right?

I said they’re both. It’s a legal case and a public opinion case. However, if society is fair minded, the public should be asking these same questions. Are you?