Message from @Starscraper
Discord ID: 786486478044659742
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.
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.
Ya can't tell me this isn't at least suspicious?
Yeah Lin Woods a lunatic. Martial law is bad.
> Their job is not...
No, but that is not at all what happened in every one of those cases, either.
> Yeah Lin Woods a lunatic. Martial law is bad.
I'm not so sure it wouldn't be worse than _this_.
This gaslighting and censorship is turning to anger and fury in a lot of Americans.
"Most secure elections in history"
Raffensberger should absolutely lawyer up. He did his job and investigated fraud. Lindsay Graham literally got caught telling him to rig the election for Trump discarding legal votes. Trump supporters are threatening him and his staff and his wife and children with death and rape and harassing them with Trump trains outside his home. He has no reason to cooperate with this sham. If they are not sending him a subpoena it would be real dumb to risk jail time getting caught up in this. The state Congress doesnt have the authority without a special session anyways
As a rule of thumb if your only path to winning is cheating or threatening the family of people doing the election it's not because you were actually the winner.
@Dedkraken I don't think you actually watched the hearings my guy, you conveniently have crafted a narrative as to why the affiants cannot be taken seriously, claiming most were "Frivolous" without anything substantial to back that up. If you cared to watch the Michigan hearing in full you would see the amount of people who came forward there ALONE and almost all of them corroborated the fact that poll watchers were intimidated, harassed, and obstructed from meaningfully doing their jobs, not to mention the testimony outlining lack of chain of custody of ballots, counting of ballots in machines multiple times (There is a video that came out today that shows this is indeed possible) and much more. Not to mention how you downplayed the expert witnesses without providing an in depth reason or counter argument as to why their testimony should not be considered.
Raffensberger is a good man. Integrity & principles.
I watched the hearings. I added context from court cases where they actually have to prove their claims instead of just saying anything they want without consequence or questions.
Raffensberger is the last human being on this planet that you should even remotely attribute any type of moral integrity to.