@Dedkraken, you just advanced to level 22!

We closed during snow.

Maybe not, I'll admit that I'm not familiar enough with law to be certain on this, but what I would say is that I'm partial to believing people who are criminally liable to getting prosecuted for false statement than those who aren't. I would appreciate if people came forward with signed affidavit claims there wasn't any of this alleged wrongdoing involved. Instead all I see are incredibly competent lawyers.

They are not criminally liable. You can’t disprove a unverifiable assertion. They have nothing to lose @Recalibar

That’s the only way you get in trouble

And if you qualify with “this is what I think I saw” or “appears to me”

Further distances you

Lying is hard to prove

> You can’t disprove a unverifiable assertion.
I'm one of those pesky sorts that believes that "The plural of anecdote is data." With thousands of anecdotes, especially in the case of the TCF center claims, under criminal penalty of false testimony, support that the TCF video demonstrates fraud. Before the video was even released.

@Recalibar also where are these incredible competent lawyers

"40-1" apparently. Guess which side I'm referencing to.

Many people have been gaslit for months to think there will be fraud and so they see fraud where it isn’t.

I gave the vodka water analogy earlier

I don't see any witness testimony that there wasn't wrongdoing. I would like to see it, and I feel like that's a pretty low bar to set. Feel me?

I watched the NV court hearing stream the other day. It doesn't take long. There was a stark difference between the Trump campaign lawyer and the defense. It was eye-opening for me. You hear the RWM that judges are dismissing cases without considering the evidence, but after watching the case and reading the ruling - Trump's team was woefully outmatched. I can give you the links, if you are interested.

Telling people for months that so and so is a drunk (and it’s in your favor that they are a drunk) you then you show them a video of that person drinking a clear liquid. Those people will believe and want to believe that this person is drinking vodka when in reality he is just drinking water @Recalibar

For the testimony bits I found the state congress senate and house hearings to be mostly a lineup of GOP witnesses to show issues. The state boards hearing though was a mix of experts saying like you shouldn't be making rules or being a judge, lawyers conning them they should do whatever they want, folks that oversaw the election counting, the reviewers, and independent observers that are supposed to keep an eye on both sides and were like look the GOP watchers were acting up. You gotta follow rules. https://youtu.be/lytepDbGK5E

Plus that county lady showed up and said I was emotional we dont do audits somewhere in the middle

They touch on the laws as well surrounding the certifying

I also read that ruling....he basically excluded all eye-witness affidavits because they were not giving in person testimony as hearsay, then he took weight off of expert witnesses.

Aye, I watched this, too. Van Langevelde basically said "This is a serious issue that needs addressing but I do not have the power to issue an audit before signing off on this date" but none of the people who were alleging there was no wrongdoing are under any sort of oath to tell the truth. Whether in court or signed affidavit.

That was not ruling on the validity when so much was excluded by his own choice.

Well none of the people at the state hearings are under oath either and nobody is going after them for an affidavit 😂 they just say it's under penalty of perjury as a fake way to amp up their claims

@Recalibar it would have been a issue then for elections prior. Not a new issue and not really some mass fraud thing either

@DisenchantedTruth You should watch the hearing... The ruling doesn't give it justice. The sound quality is awful, but I was like ready to make popcorn and watch it like an episode of Law and Order... and it was a crazy mismatch.

Dun dun

I did watch it.

If you ask me, if you have 1000 people alledged that they committed fraud in such a manner, vs 1000 accusing that group, then 1000 people need to be criminally charged with something. Get me?

I'd like to think the police officers taking the GOP watchers out of the room are also not super dumb or something that it's over nothing

@DisenchantedTruth If you needed an attorney and your livelihood depended on it, which one would you hire.

@RobertGrulerEsq - without a doubt!

Sorry. Had to.

Too funny...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0-vyw9qbdw Counter testimony.

I honestly felt like Binnell presented a strong case when you take in the preponderance of evidence .... until I found that the judge basically excluded most evidence.

Lots of the affidavits dont seem to know what fraud is or have weird complaints or just wanted to say they thought people were rude to them

That hearing was an embarrassment to Michiganders.

Also, they did have depositions with cross examination on a certain number of witnesses - negotiated due to time constraints. The Trump Campaign lawyers were allowed to bring like 10 of their best witnesses to be deposed with opposing council. They didn't hold up to scrutiny... These were the best as chosen by the plaintiff.

Which I think is just sloppy or intentional from Trump Legal Team

Emotions did run high...

The reason I feel more inclined to believe this group of people is that they're under criminal charges for fraud if they're all indeed liars.