the people that signed affidavits.. what happens to them... ?

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
75,379
Reaction score
16,957
Points
2,180
Trump's hand-picked AG said there was no sizable voter fraud.

Explain.
 

Smokin' OP

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
831
Reaction score
378
Points
143
Location
Florida
they were summarily dismissed as lying fuckers.

YOU'RE a LYING FUCKER.

You're thread is fake news.

Your link is a JOKE. A few worthless sentences of empty claims behind a subscribe wall. And still nothing to back up their allegations.

I can prove the fraud was real anytime. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Time Magazine has listed all the parties involved who have BRAGGED about it taking credit for the steal. I have 88 cases of well-documented instances of corrupt, illegal malfeasance. Will you be the 21st person here I've dared to go one on one, item by item and prove me wrong and show how all of it, all of the documentation is a lie, false, wrong and baseless?

WHY CAN'T ONE PERSON CLAIMING THE ELECTION FRAUD IS A LIE BACK IT UP AND SHOW US HOW THEY KNOW???
Why can't Dotard, his crackerjack "Lawyers" or ONE teabagger PROVE their was election fraud?
The evidence lies with the accuser.
PUN intended.
 

Smokin' OP

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
831
Reaction score
378
Points
143
Location
Florida

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
58,020
Reaction score
16,194
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
You made the claim and claim you have the"Evidence". You need to prove your "Positive". And then we need to examine it. The ball is in your court.

Everything else you said is garbage. I have the evidence. I'm ready to present it. You need to examine it. I've been asking people here for weeks who have been making the accusation that there is no evidence and that it is false to be prepared to back up THEIR claims.

In order to say the evidence doesn't exist or is false means that you have some proof, some reason, some documentation or evidence to the CONTRARY. Are you ready to present YOUR case? Are you prepared to show how all the evidence I have is wrong? I've made a claim. YOU called me a liar. That is a charge. I'll prove my case but can you prove YOURS. That IS how it works and if you HAD ANYTHING to back up your accusation the there is no evidence or it was false, I wouldn't still be arguing with you and the twenty other odd people here who have all run from standing behind their words! And it looks like you are running away too.
If you have this so called rock solid evidence of widespread fraud that could change the result of the State's election, in 4 of those battleground states....

Then TRUMP should fire Rudi tutti as his lawyer, and replace him with you!!!! Cuz Rudy never presented any election fraud evidence, before the court....

Don't be ridiculous. If anything, Rudy knows everything I know and has even more. Doesn't change a thing. No court wanted to get involved, so they certainly ain't going to listen to me if they wouldn't listen to the presidents attorney!

The great lie is that it NEVER WAS ABOUT NOT HAVING THE EVIDENCE-- -- it is about no court wanting half the country mad at them, threatening them and crawling up their butt accusing THEM of changing the election for partisan reasons! As it was, leaving it as was resulted in a mob at the Capitol. Had some court reversed the election, it would have been a repeat of Floyd and 2020.
That's simply not true.

Every court, reviewed the best evidence Rudy presented in his court brief summary presented to the judges.

These judges reviewed these court briefs and the evidence presented within them, thoroughly, so the judges could determine off of the legal brief evidence and legal arguments, whether the cases had any merit.

It was not done blindfolded. The judges had to review the legal arguments and evidence in the legal briefs in order to decide if the cases had legal merit or not.

Stop repeating the LIE that the evidence was never reviewed....if Giuliani or any lawyer presented evidence in his legal brief, IT WAS REVIEWED.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
36,391
Reaction score
21,503
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
WHY CAN'T ONE PERSON CLAIMING THE ELECTION FRAUD IS A LIE BACK IT UP AND SHOW US HOW THEY KNOW???
Why can't Dotard, his crackerjack "Lawyers" or ONE teabagger PROVE their was election fraud?


Why do you ask questions already answered here 100 times? I CAN prove election fraud, I WILL, all I want is one of your spineless pukes who keeps claiming there is no evidence, or that it was disproved, or simply that none of the courts would try the cases, to go up against me and show us HOW YOU KNOW the evidence is false and baseless?

I've read over and over by every major media outlet that the election fraud charges are "baseless" or "disproved," but yet none of you yutzs can TELL ME HOW.

All you idiots do is point your finger elsewhere and say HE said so, or because of this or that, so YOU DON'T KNOW.

I can't find one source claiming the fraud has been "disproved" or "debunked" that has any other basis to stand that claim on other than because . . . .

. . . . EVERYBODY ELSE SAYS IT IS.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,458
Reaction score
47,252
Points
2,190
I CAN prove election fraud,
Then why, in 60 cases taken to court, was this evidence not presented or rejected entirely?

Problem is...The court does not accept internet conspiracy theories
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
36,391
Reaction score
21,503
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Why can't Dotard, his crackerjack "Lawyers" or ONE teabagger PROVE their was election fraud?

Trump and Giuliani HAVE proven it a hundred times over! I can prove it. But proving something logically and rationally by fact and extrapolation is one thing, getting a judge to admit the case and allow you to present the evidence to him, then to vet it legally to make a legally binding decision affecting the election is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.

But then, I'm talking to a 7 year old here, ain't I?
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
75,379
Reaction score
16,957
Points
2,180
I can't find one source claiming the fraud has been "disproved" or "debunked" that has any other basis to stand that claim on other than because . . . .

. . . . EVERYBODY ELSE SAYS IT IS.
Can you find one state that didn't certify it's election results?

No?

You lose.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
36,391
Reaction score
21,503
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Some are being sued
For what?

Who?
I can see you have mastered the Vinnie Barbarino Defense.

OK Shithead, tell us how you know the election fraud claims are baseless!
The courts, 60 of them, would be a prime indicator but that's just me.

Courts? A prime indicator?

So when courts couldn't convict John Gotti of racketeering, that meant he was innocent? When courts looked the other way for years when southern racists would string up blacks from trees and hang them, and dismiss it all as "boys just out for a good time," that too was OK? No crime to see here?

I've already told you FIVE times that the courts side stepped the issue not wanting to come between the election boards and the voters. They didn't want their families threatened, their homes attacked, riots in the streets and everything else for overturning an election and be accused of picking a president.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
36,391
Reaction score
21,503
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Every court, reviewed the best evidence Rudy presented in his court brief summary presented to the judges.
BULLSHIT. That is not at all what I said. You can't determine whether an election was stolen by simply looking at a court brief summary.

These judges reviewed these court briefs and the evidence presented within them, thoroughly, so the judges could determine off of the legal brief evidence and legal arguments, whether the cases had any merit.
BULLSHIT. They based their decision on procedural and technical findings. You are admitting they didn't do an in depth investigation of the data at hand.

It was not done blindfolded. The judges had to review the legal arguments and evidence in the legal briefs in order to decide if the cases had legal merit or not.
BULLSHIT. You are admitting they dismissed the cases on their arbitrary decision the case had no legal merit or standing, and DID NOT vet the evidence itself and find that it was false, baseless, or debunked, as the media keeps claiming!

Stop repeating the LIE that the evidence was never reviewed....if Giuliani or any lawyer presented evidence in his legal brief, IT WAS REVIEWED.
BULLSHIT. You are admitting the cases were dismissed for lack of standing, not for lack of PROOF. when you go into a murder or larceny case, you don't "review" the evidence, it is systematically presented piece by piece by a prosecutor who proves his case over days, weeks and months, or the court DISPROVES the evidence as not holding up, you don't review a "summary" of it over minutes and hours. All you've said here is to admit the evidence itself was never thoroughly vetted, no one court other than the SCOTUS even ever had all the evidence before them because it was a multi-state affair! Outside their jurisdiction. The courts told Trump he didn't even have standing to BRING the cases, much less prove them.
 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
10,792
Reaction score
2,513
Points
290
Location
State 48
Many of the affidavits I saw through articles posted on this board really didn't say anything more then folks finding things suspicious. They were simply people's honest interpretation of events that they supplied to Trump's lawyers. It was up to those lawyers to investigate the suspicions before heading into court if they really thought something was amiss. I don't believe there was anything criminal on part of either side.
Not even Postal sub-contractor truck drivers driving ballots over the border from NY to PA?
I only saw one story about that and it was filled with enough admission of ignorance that it seemed odd that the driver came up with a specific number of ballots he said he was carrying. Which made his tale fishy to me. I'm not sure what Trump's lawyers did with the tale, to me it only added to the sea of rubbish they had to wade through.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,458
Reaction score
47,252
Points
2,190
Some are being sued
For what?

Who?
I can see you have mastered the Vinnie Barbarino Defense.

OK Shithead, tell us how you know the election fraud claims are baseless!
The courts, 60 of them, would be a prime indicator but that's just me.

Courts? A prime indicator?

So when courts couldn't convict John Gotti of racketeering, that meant he was innocent? When courts looked the other way for years when southern racists would string up blacks from trees and hang them, and dismiss it all as "boys just out for a good time," that too was OK? No crime to see here?

I've already told you FIVE times that the courts side stepped the issue not wanting to come between the election boards and the voters. They didn't want their families threatened, their homes attacked, riots in the streets and everything else for overturning an election and be accused of picking a president.
Courts in Blue States, courts in Red States, Liberal Judges, Conservative Judges...Trump Judges
All found stolen election claims groundless.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
58,020
Reaction score
16,194
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Some are being sued
For what?

Who?
I can see you have mastered the Vinnie Barbarino Defense.

OK Shithead, tell us how you know the election fraud claims are baseless!
The courts, 60 of them, would be a prime indicator but that's just me.

Courts? A prime indicator?

So when courts couldn't convict John Gotti of racketeering, that meant he was innocent? When courts looked the other way for years when southern racists would string up blacks from trees and hang them, and dismiss it all as "boys just out for a good time," that too was OK? No crime to see here?

I've already told you FIVE times that the courts side stepped the issue not wanting to come between the election boards and the voters. They didn't want their families threatened, their homes attacked, riots in the streets and everything else for overturning an election and be accused of picking a president.
Do your own work.

Read each case's Judicial summaries, and the legal briefs by each side's lawyers.

All of your concerns are answered, with a little bit of work, on your part.
 

krichton

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
277
Reaction score
153
Points
153
they were summarily dismissed as lying fuckers.
what about them. fake media had bidens' (plural) back... afidavits aren't evidence they reported.

where does that leave the guy who drove a semi truck of ballots across state lines ?

is that the norm from now on..

if so why ? is this fair and right and ok with the democrats now ?


Have you read some of the affidavits? The reason why none of them could even be admitted by trump's lawyers is because many are just delusional opinions from trump supporters, throwing out anything they could so Trump's team could get an "official affidavit" down on record, just so they can say, we have this many affidavits! It's basically the usual dog and pony show from Trump. The courts are not going to entertain an "affidavit" where a person says, i saw military ballots go for Joe Biden, but military personnel are supposed to be republican. Something fishy there. Here's my affidavit. Please. The fact that the Trump team would even record that as one of their official affidavits shows you how insanely desperate his team was to find anything they could to help Trump.
 
OP
washamericom

washamericom

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,257
Points
245
they were summarily dismissed as lying fuckers.
what about them. fake media had bidens' (plural) back... afidavits aren't evidence they reported.

where does that leave the guy who drove a semi truck of ballots across state lines ?

is that the norm from now on..

if so why ? is this fair and right and ok with the democrats now ?


Have you read some of the affidavits? The reason why none of them could even be admitted by trump's lawyers is because many are just delusional opinions from trump supporters, throwing out anything they could so Trump's team could get an "official affidavit" down on record, just so they can say, we have this many affidavits! It's basically the usual dog and pony show from Trump. The courts are not going to entertain an "affidavit" where a person says, i saw military ballots go for Joe Biden, but military personnel are supposed to be republican. Something fishy there. Here's my affidavit. Please. The fact that the Trump team would even record that as one of their official affidavits shows you how insanely desperate his team was to find anything they could to help Trump.
which state allowed discovery, why are voters denied standing ?
 

Smokin' OP

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
831
Reaction score
378
Points
143
Location
Florida
WHY CAN'T ONE PERSON CLAIMING THE ELECTION FRAUD IS A LIE BACK IT UP AND SHOW US HOW THEY KNOW???
Why can't Dotard, his crackerjack "Lawyers" or ONE teabagger PROVE their was election fraud?


Why do you ask questions already answered here 100 times? I CAN prove election fraud, I WILL, all I want is one of your spineless pukes who keeps claiming there is no evidence, or that it was disproved, or simply that none of the courts would try the cases, to go up against me and show us HOW YOU KNOW the evidence is false and baseless?

I've read over and over by every major media outlet that the election fraud charges are "baseless" or "disproved," but yet none of you yutzs can TELL ME HOW.

All you idiots do is point your finger elsewhere and say HE said so, or because of this or that, so YOU DON'T KNOW.

I can't find one source claiming the fraud has been "disproved" or "debunked" that has any other basis to stand that claim on other than because . . . .

. . . . EVERYBODY ELSE SAYS IT IS.
"I CAN prove election fraud, I WILL,"
Carry on, prove it, then take your evidence to a prosecutor.
 

Smokin' OP

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
831
Reaction score
378
Points
143
Location
Florida
Some are being sued
For what?

Who?
I can see you have mastered the Vinnie Barbarino Defense.

OK Shithead, tell us how you know the election fraud claims are baseless!
The courts, 60 of them, would be a prime indicator but that's just me.

Courts? A prime indicator?

So when courts couldn't convict John Gotti of racketeering, that meant he was innocent? When courts looked the other way for years when southern racists would string up blacks from trees and hang them, and dismiss it all as "boys just out for a good time," that too was OK? No crime to see here?

I've already told you FIVE times that the courts side stepped the issue not wanting to come between the election boards and the voters. They didn't want their families threatened, their homes attacked, riots in the streets and everything else for overturning an election and be accused of picking a president.
No but the prosecutor presented enough evidence with a grand jury for them to decide it was enough to proceed with a trial.
Don't you think they would have been targeted by Gotti or the jurors in the trial, that convicted him?
60 judges sidestepped the issue because they were scared?
SIXTY?
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
36,391
Reaction score
21,503
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Carry on, prove it, then take your evidence to a prosecutor.

I thought we went over this 50 times already in a dozen threads: maybe you just don't GET IT: NO ONE WANTS TO PROSECUTE IT because they don't want labeled and blamed for changing an election and attacked by legions of radicalized fuckwits!

So it's dead on arrival no matter what court you go to, so the only thing left to do is to simply lay it out clearly so that it can be rationally and factually demonstrated, ie, scientifically PROVEN VALID. I can do that, I will do it, but I want someone who claims its all been debunked to show us how!
 

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
39,397
Reaction score
8,192
Points
1,330
they were summarily dismissed as lying fuckers.
what about them. fake media had bidens' (plural) back... afidavits aren't evidence they reported.

where does that leave the guy who drove a semi truck of ballots across state lines ?

is that the norm fro. now on..

if so why ?
thats the democrat way,,,

not a single person that signed an affidavit was allowed to testify in court under oath,, whats worse is those accused were never confronted about the claims,,
:thankusmile: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top