That's a name you don't see every day.

It doesnt take signature verification but that would kick off the criminal investigation. When 5000 possible dead voters gets checked if 1 of those is a legit case you also get caught. Just often they are all bogus.

Criminal investigation? They're not even hearing much lower standard of evidence cases on merits.

That is false if they find a legitimate case of voter fraud its 100% turned over to prosecutors it's just very rare.

Attempted massive mail-in fraud takes a special kind of stupid. There was a report that a man in NC tried to request 50 mail-in ballots to the same address - his address.

"If they find a legitimate case"

Pretty hard to do if you have to prove something before you can investigate.

It doesn't take a court order to launch a criminal investigation - only willing law enforcement officers.

They are struggling in civil court because its actually no legitimate cases. Earlier than these lawsuits a few folks got caught doing the fraud. Usually Trump supporters proving some kind of Floridaman point

Lol

@Starscraper, you just advanced to level 1!

No legitimate cases, huh? I guess all those hearings I listened to for... 18+ hours were really nothing, huh?

When Fox tried to run those dead voter stories the real news tracked down those live people. It didnt take proving anything in court. The followup work can be done. When they find cases it goes to cops and prosecutors as a felony.

Oh, hell...

It doesn't go anywhere when there's no signature verification and nobody acts on addresses listing empty lots and strip malls.

I mean basically 0 of those 18 hours was devoted to proving cases of dead voters. Although some folks like Mellissa randomly shout it in court because they saw it on OAN.

Did anyone other than OAN even cover all the hearings?

Empty lots is a completely different kind of fraud than dead voters or signature issues.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/trump-ted-cruz-supreme-court/index.html

Also "fact checkers" in media checked the wrong list in at least one instance.

There's been a few, apparently.

If you change a dead guys address to an empty lot the mail guy isnt going to just leave it there for you 😅

IIRC what they were claiming there was missing addresses or wrong ones and election workers were ignoring or adding them

Well there you go

If you listened to the Rudy show "hearings", most were not actual hearings... Nobody posed questions let alone cross examined. One of the MI hearings had questions, but it turned into a fiasco. The GA hearings had questions from both sides and I think they did a good job. I think it is important to make a distinction about testimony being valid when conducted under oath and under cross examination. So many of these witnesses have not held up under cross examination.

So? They're just the tip of the iceberg of hundreds upon hundreds of affidavits that are essentially oath. If only 20% hold up under cross-examination, that's still a huge number.

@Starscraper, you just advanced to level 2!

Here's a fun thought exercise: what do you think it would look like if fraud did happen, and if it didn't?

Affidavits arent really "under oath" that's just what they say to give an air of credibility to the equivalent of random internet posts on facebook.

Under threat of purjury?

Legally binding?

Can you not get in serious legal trouble if you lie on one?

Theres not a prosecutor alive that's going after people because they were a poll observer and signed a piece of paper that said I saw people in BLM clothing or election workers with no nametag or they thought people were rude to them or they didnt understand what the green button was for. It's also not fraud if accurate. Guiliani didnt give a damn what they were alleging they wanted a thick stack of paper to hold up and pretend their star witnesses and experts were supported by hundreds of oddball comments.

The substantial allegations were few and far between.

Were they "few and far between", or were they "not fraud if accurate", pick one.

I wasted far too much time listening to so many hearings to not throw my experience in to object and say there were definitely legitimate claims, and I'll also add that intimidation, harassment, and wrongfully / in a biased manner throwing out challengers and observers are **serious** misconduct that cannot be overlooked and should not be downplayed.

A challenger who is afraid of getting dragged out of the building is not going to be able to effectively challenge votes, and that will have a material effect on a disparity of rejection rates between each party.

Scary indeed.

WOW

In fact, I recall some of the witnesses were challengers saying they were intimidated to the point where they were not able to perform their duties (for fear of being removed if they challenged too many votes).

WOW

The affidavits that weren't in the hearing were super frivolous. If what you are saying is true provides no relevant information or wrong ballots or crimes it shouldn't have been in the "hundreds of affidavits" but they were. They were full of incredibly odd and inane things that is why when a judge got them and the Trump legal team put forth zero effort to weed out credible cases they went in the trash.

Of the more substantial claims a handful were star witnesses like the train wrecks that were in MI which have a great deal of trouble squaring their in depth claims with things that happened. The expert affidavits such as in the kraken weave an incredible tale with suspect data but lack the expertise to be experts. Then you have a wide variety of poll watcher Karen's that claim rudeness but seem to be instead quit biased and whose stories dont mesh with independent nonpartisan folks there. If GOP poll watchers are violating the rules it's not a problem if they are dealt with. Their job is not to challenge 100% of votes or intimidate or attack election workers or scream or demand legal votes be thrown out of attack the building because they cant get in.