Why should the machines be examined?

No evidence of fraud

They need the jump drives!

hand recount matches the results

Watch the dominion contractor whistleblower

Can you give me an example of what you would consider to qualify as "evidence"? I keep hearing this claim and it seems like people have a very unrealistic standard for what qualifies as evidence

Show me what you have

Evidence depends on the claim.

My point is that if anyone can just be unhappy with the results and then demand that the state turn over their voting rolls and machines and all his mess... where does it end?

No I'm saying hypothetically, what would be convincing to you? If you were king of US elections, in this case what are some examples of what you would need to see to be convinced the election was stolen?

There are lots of things that could convince me its too broad of a question

maybe use different levels? what evidence would you need to see to think a hardcore audit is appropriate? and then what evidence would convince you to overturn the results

Its like saying what would convince me that dude a killed dude b.... well it depends. Video would do it. So would lots of other stuff

I'm just asking for some examples, I realize there could be different things

You are asking me to make an assumption that it was stolen. I dont even know how it could be stolen without it being obvious

No im not

I'm saying: imagine you are the final person that certifies the election. Trump team is saying it was stolen. Give me a handful of examples of evidence they would need to show for you to be convinced they are correct? you aren't assuming its not stolen. they need to show you the evidence. what evidence do they need?

It ends with if you can successfully convince the legislatures to not certify the election.

And then Congress to not certify it

or a judge to uphold an election contest

What I would need is some evidence that would make me think that either the entire election commission and the sec of state in say Georgia are either corrupt or clearly incompetent because they are saying everything is solid

Okay. And what would be some examples of what such evidence would look like?

No idea

But will be happy to look at it. So show it to me

The point I'm getting at is how people keep saying "no evidence of fraud", I think you've said it once or twice in this convo. There IS evidence. The R&R podcast has said this over and over again. He's shown a bunch of it.

I mean admission by someone that had the power and access to steal the election and then can explain how it happen... but Im not limiting it to that... that is just once example but there may be dozens of examples.

Well... every judge that has ruled on these cases disagree that the "evidence" is solid

respectfully, it's absurd to say "there is no evidence". If you say, "there is not enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt"...that would be much more valid. I might even agree with you

No evidence of mass voter fraud (enough to swing an election) which is being claimed by Trump. Technical incompetence: yes. Small level voter fraud on both sides: yes.

A person can testify to something that is a lie... its evidence but its not reliable. When I say evidence I mean something that I feel comfortable relying on

So so me your best piece of evidence

@JD~Jordan Why isn't "Performing actions that enable you to get away with fraud" + "Anomalous results that point toward fraud" + "Blocking access to information that would allow others to verify if you've performed fraudulent actions" evidence?

Again, there IS evidence. Literally hundreds of pages of evidence. This part is indisputable. The question is "is the evidence enough?"

Only in this case, they are asking the Legislators for a Forensic Audit

Its not reliable evidence... A dirty plate is evidence someone had dinner... but its not reliable evidence of who had dinner or even what they might have had to eat

Or if the evidence is valid @JonasRobert

I feel like anyone who says "there is no evidence" or "there is no evidence of widespread..." etc, should give an example of what such evidence would look like. Otherwise people can just keep parroting this line that is very clearly untrue

@JonasRobert, you just advanced to level 4!

It's evidence. It's not proof.

Enough evidence to counter the evidence being provided in affidavits.

Evidence should be backed by facts to the extent of holding up in court specific cases of fraud would be cool