Message from @William Dinan
Discord ID: 785193079740432394
But there's always a side that will not accept the results.. that argument cuts both ways philosophically
Fraud and an Election Challenge are two different thinks. One is Criminal the other is Process. Both can be violations of Law. The Scope and Remedy are a matter for the Finder of Fact.
*things
We dont need everyone with an inane comment to weigh in to give Trump due process. Biased affidavits not alleging fraud does not a case make for widespread fruad
I can't find any facts perhaps somebody has but I don't think this is a fact-based game I think it's up... S show
This is highly theoretical based off of some unseen yet to be discovered evidence.
I'm not trying to be a smarty pants but I ain't seen it.
We are what several dozens of hours of testimony in and still arent getting to a concrete case
Only the opposite.
Opposite meaning total nothing Burger.
I'm not sure where you're not getting your news but there is plenty of evidence that has the potential to turn over the election and that needs to be thoroughly investigated in order to determine it's validity.
That is what Evidentiary Hearings and Trials are for.
One part of the problem is we don't have any defined metrics.
What is your definition of evidence?
@busillis, you just advanced to level 28!
What is your definition of widespread voter fraud? Any fraud is too much and voter is disenfranchised the whole election is in question? Or hundreds of thousands of votes?
The definition is established by the Code of Procedures.
That's a weasel word answer.
When you build a system or create a system you create metrics to measure the systems performance.
The hearings in front of the legislatures this week offered all kinds of evidence. The accusations made by the affiants are evidence because they submitted the affidavits which puts them under penalty of perjury. There is video in Georgia. There are statistical improbabilities that are so egregious to the point of being impossible. There is much evidence and it needs to be heard in court.
No system is completely foolproof but there's acceptable levels of deviation from the metric.
Those people are in actual danger of perjury that's just something they say
The paragons of eyewitness evidence don't seem to pass for me...
The only acceptable levels of deviation are levels that have no ability to change the result. There is enough evidence is all the disputed states to change the result.
you have the it check that's never really been in the environment where votes are counted with those machines making wild assertions.
This would be an indication of bias on your part.
I agree it is bias...
But then I did a thought experiment and tried to figure out how that would actually work.
So the secret ballots don't have another way for the machine that they're not being read twice?
How do you explain that the secret ballot number matches the number of a ballot in the pole book?
And the Michigan case the ballot has to be requested
When it comes in it's matched to a signature for whatever little that's worth match to a serial number in the poll book then read.
You're going to have to be more specific. Way too many cases going on for that kind of generality.
What kind of operation would it take to have 100 sent out then received and sent back in that are requested.
Then a thousand
@Soburin That was the whole idea. Gives *you* the impression that it's a thing.
The ballot requesting software isn't looking for multiple inquiries from the same IP addresses that's not easily ascertained by the system administrators?
If it's not a thing it can be proven in court. Keeping it out of the courts just raises suspicion.
what 'ballot requesting software'? what even is that
We can't prove it in court but it feels right so...