- Thread starter
- #61
Most of the sworn affidavits that Rudy claims to have have not been filed in court. The rest have been thrown out by judges as being not credible. As for the consequences lying in them, it is actually very rare for someone to be prosecuted for perjury outside of the context of normal courtroom proceedings. Rudy knew this so that’s how he got those people to cooperate.But thats just it. Its not extremely rare. We have testimonies of people who say it happened frequently. Most on the left call that fake news, but we will just have to see where it all ends up. The right claims they have the evidence.It’s already been established that fraud in mail in voting specifically is extremely rare. If you think about it, it’s not hard to believe. Why would people risk jail time for something as minuscule as voting twice?Nope, extremely possible. In fact, ill go one step further, ill say that there is almost no possible way that trump voters didn't cheat as well, just like biden voters cheated. It happens in every election, probably always will.I don’t know what the level of fraud is if it exists at all. What I do know is that historically voter fraud is extremely rare. If there was fraud this election which I can’t rule out, it wouldn’t be enough to overturn the election either way. That also means fraud could have been made by Trump voters. That’s something you want to pretend isn’t possible I guess.And it means we have no assurance that there wasn't.Which means you have no assurance there was any widespread fraud to begin with?1) hard to determine. Mail in voting in several states for several days after the election date combined with oddities make it hard to calculate.1) How many votes, roughly, did Trump beat Biden by in the key swing states? How do you figure this?
2) Did Trump win the popular vote as well? By how much? How do you figure this?
3) How many of the swing states did Biden lose? How do you figure this?
4) Were there any voting irregularities on the part or Trump voters? Can you be sure the cheating was only limited to democrats? How so?
Michigan voter fraud hearing goes viral for alleged flatulence, unruly witness
A hearing in Michigan on Wednesday regarding voter fraud in the presidential election went viral over alleged flatulence and testimony from an unruly witness. During the nearly five-hour hearing be…thehill.com
2) hard to determine. Mail in voting in several states for several days after the election date combined with oddities make it hard to calculate.
3) hard to determine. Mail in voting in several states for several days after the election date combined with oddities make it hard to calculate.
4) hard to determine. Mail in voting in several states for several days after the election date combined with oddities make it hard to calculate.
Its interesting though, I keep hearing this line about "no widespread fraud" which seems to indicate that you believe there actually was fraud. I can never get anyone to answer though, how much voter fraud is acceptable?
If, however, you implemented a new system by which voter fraud has a chance to increase, wouldn't you want to weed that out? I'm guessing your answer is "no". You will probably say that the convenience of being able to mail in a vote outweighs the potential increase of voter fraud.
So, there is currently only few instances of voter fraud, but we only had, 5 states? doing mass mail in votes? What happens when they make that system available in all 50 states?
Now imagine that for a moment. In 50 states, there will be hundreds of millions of ballots floating around the mail system, with no way to track them, no way to make sure that the ballot was received by its intended recipient, no signature matching, and no way to make sure that someone else doesn't fill out a ballot that was not intended for them.
Do you not see how much of a mess that would be? You could be sure that, with mass mail out balloting, you would never have a legitimate election ever again.
But let's say, for the sake of argument that it is rare, currently, you're still not seeing it on the big scale. Yeah, it may be rare now, because mass mail in voting is still a very small operation, but, if it ever goes nation wide, like some people want, that rare will go to, not so uncommon. Again, from what we have seen with this version of it, the nation wide version of it would be something impossible to keep track of
As for your last question. People are not concerned with going to jail because it's currently hard to pin it on an individual. If there is no need to match signatures, if addresses do not need to be verified, and if votes that are incomplete are counted, then nobody really has to worry about getting caught. Too much plausible deniability.
Its also not miniscule. Look how big this years vote has become. There are many people who would definitely think the risk is worth it if they can get their guy elected.
Likewise though, the same question would be posed to the left. Why would anyone want to give a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, for something as miniscule as an election?
As for signatures, those change naturally over time.
