It's exceptionally difficult to prove bad faith.

i definitely see intent

I think you give him too much credit.

it's difficult to prove in the court of law not the court of public opinion and he's done good job convincing me. i'll let him continue and r-present my case in couple of weeks

He is probably going off of Jovan Pulitzer testimony

it's always Trump first, I've never seen anyone fight so hard for a job he has no interest or frankly, capability of doing.

He was able to get the GA senate to agree to allow him to audit Fulton county mail and claimed that shredding trucks were there as soon as it passed

Sure, but Trump hates losing, and him admitting defeat would be counter to his thoughts on people losing.

So I'm almost sure he's made some mechanism to avoid calling himself a loser -- AKA: This entire 'election was a fraud' idea.

Just so he never has to actually concede, nor feel like he does. I'm almost positive he believes and latches onto anything to support this theory.

Maw you didn't respond about the panel

I did, I said this isn't how the law works.

What she's claiming would be illegal.

so you see nothing wrong with 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, & 2 League of Women Voters

I do, hence saying if this was the case it'd be illegal!

so what should happen to those votes if what she said is true?

I don't think it's true, it's up to her to prove it is. Not me to prove it isn't.

He can do that publicly as he has been doing and have impact on his followers believe it (which he successfully has done) but making calls to governors, legislators, and all the rest can amount to intent....i would say he's attempting to steal the election as much as he doesn't want to be a loser.

wasn't the question

Your disagreement to the premise is noted

That would imply that he'd actually have to feel like a loser, I don't think he does. I think that's catastrophic to his worldview.

My disagreement lays on the fact that it would be illegal and someone would have been charged for that/arrested for that during the GBI investigation.

lol nm

we differ on this one...i have faith, his continued actions will convince you otherwise.

Perhaps!

and likewise me also

I'm not going to speculate about relief of election integrity when there exists no proof nor evidence of what she claimed.

This is some woman at a GOP hearing, likely associated with the GOP, making some wild claim of illegal behavior which I've seen nothing about.

You'd think the Trump-appointed adjudicator would have spoken up if this was the case.

But I guess he's just a swamp creature too, right?

Not to mention this would leave a trail of breadcrumbs.

Hence why they want the high res ballot images

Who is they? Pretty sure multiple bipartisan entities have gone over these already.

I want dueling interests argue about what they find, not "bipartisan" investigators doing that for us

Is "they" the public which aren't experts in signature matching, nor have any training regarding it, wanting high res images so they can erroneously point out perceived flaws to fit their preconceived narrative?

Bipartisan literally means dueling interests in most cases, but alright..?

no, you sighted GBI

That's not the only group of people that have gone over ballots.

Here is a question: How are you claiming the adjudication process ended up being fraudulent.

you already said it was illegal

but don't believe her