Look at the audience...

And they did. PA is a single example, this has nothing to do with the systems of voting.

If you believe the Kraken experts my God you'll believe anything.... But then that's just me I don't trust anything.@Zuluzeit

It has to do with the court not following the separation of powers for mail-in deadlines. Not the systems of voting.

PA is THE example we were talking about.court ordered no signature checks. Court ordered extended deadline. Neither was in the original legislation.

Violation of electors clause

@TaLoN132 complete analysis isn't in a sound bite. And that's what people want little short tropes.

The thing about mail-in votes is that we know where the ballots were sent. If there are ballots in question, a decent private investigator should be able to track down who received them. If only someone with a vested interest had a sizable amount of money in order to pay for private investigators to track down these fraudsters to prove without a doubt that fraud occurred...

If only any of these suits made it to the discovery phase

That brings me back to the idea of this isn't to prove election fraud...

Then take it up with PA. You can't say that their votes don't matter though, that isn't how this system works.

I guess it's also hard to prove something that doesn't appear to exist.@TaLoN132

Criminal and private investigations do not require any court authorizations. In fact, they are usually done BEFORE filing suit.

You don't punish the constituents for an issue of the state.

3 buckets of grievances:

State election laws
Manipulatable software
Bogus ballots

Putting all of them in an interchangeable pile and calling the pile itself irrefutable is not going to help.

Bingo!

It's much harder to disprove the existence of something.

That can't be what they're trying to do with this....

Which a lot of people want as well.

(in fact, it's impossible in 99% of cases)

@Zuluzeit Got it. I still wonder if any of you have watched the overstock.com guy’s interview. I honestly hope that none of this election fraud is true, but I have just seen too many believable and reasonable people’s testimonies. I really try to vary who and what I listen to so that I can come up with my own opinions. I honestly did not start with my belief and then build evidence like someone suggested.

The NSA listening post missile guy...

@Maw Hahaha Yeah, proving the absence of existence is a little tricky. That's why the burden of proof is a thing.

it's almost like they're trying to see who can come up with that most outlandish crap that they can actually get people to believe in. Some of the stuff is just insane.@Lorinda

Therefore, if someone can't disprove existence (what people are looking for when they seek audits) then they're never going to find proof of non-existence, meaning this searching is going to lead nowhere. It will do **nothing**.

Because people will always have another excuse.

But this but this but this but this but this but this....

And it's all nothing.

Need access to the evidence

I'm all for transparency and looking for fraud, but when you ask for the 20th attempt to do so it changes my opinion pretty severely.

@Lorinda Have you listened to all of the explanations of claims made from speculation? Did any of them seem like they came from credible people, using the same measures you employed in determining credibility of claimants?

I didn't say anything other than it was garbage. That's logically unimpeachable

Such is the risk of federalism. You don't just get the upsides from one ideology, you get both the pros and cons.

Wtf is a claimant? @busillis more jargon please.

Not even sure it's a word. Sounded good to me.

I'm just messing with you....

Pretty sure it is.

It only seems to work in the context of illegal discussion.

Just messing with the dude

Not arguing. Viva la fraud

It's another word for plaintiff, iirc.