Message from @AdvanceManExtraordinaire
Discord ID: 783079876134830150
In effort to be as transparent as possible, this is the message in question.
Illegally counting votes would be fraud and this is not what she attested to... No attempt was made to let anyone vote illegally - per her testimony.
lol at the bias pouring out of that headline
I am curious where this takes the legal effort in Arizona. Supposedly this was planned in advance of team trumps hearing.
That subheading I’m going to call, a bit biased.
Would it kill to include a fact every now and then?
It is biased. I agree with you, but some of the claims are frivolous.
That guy was nuts and probably drowns himself in Alex Jones type rhetoric
@AdamS Case in point, *"In Arizona, Mr Giuliani claimed without evidence that votes had been changed and that ballot boxes had been “stuffed” before introducing a “witness" who claimed to have "personally debriefed the son of a Cuban intelligence officer who had first-hand knowledge speaking with two of Hugo Chavez’s family members" who said he had a direct connection to voting machines used to alter US election outcomes."*
That is type of "evidence" that makes people discount the rest of what he says. How can anyone take this seriously as "evidence" worth considering?
I would say this mischaracterizes the little I saw of the hearing. Why do they try to whittle it down to something that is easy to construct a silly narrative around?
I’ve noticed most the cases are silly narratives. I believe small scale fraud took place (on both sides) but not mass fraud, no evidence has been presented. Technical irregularities have taken place but not mass fraud or on a level to impact the election. we would have seen concrete evidence by now.
Fine
James... youve been acting like this for the last 4h. Have a grown up conv. Or just let the others
Assuming this accurately represents the essence of what was said - even if it is paraphrased - I'm not sure any amount of additional detail would make it sound any less silly on the whole.
The two so-called sides need to find common ground before we all are irreparably damaged by the tyranny of the few oligarchs.
Fully agree.
Yup. Oligarchs no bueno.
How would you know if it represents the essence of the hearing, having not watched it? Would you trust a left wing source to tell the truth about a hearing That trumps legal team called for? In other words, are the incentives aligned to give you the truth?
@AdvanceManExtraordinaire, you just advanced to level 6!
It's becoming harder to not come to this conclusion. I think the only viable reputable avenue left to Trump is the notion that mail-in ballots were accepted that could reasonably be disqualified because the signatures are demonstrably invalid. I just have not seen anything that is anything other than speculation - something akin to "we believe that invalid signatures were accepted, so we must be able to scrutinize all signatures (which is a somewhat subjective process".
However, in PA, I think they overplayed their hand... They claimed that watchers/observers were excluded from being able to oversee the validation of signatures. I am not sure if this is true or what they are entitled to witness. In CA, signatures are matched as ballots are received, which could be week's in advance. Even so, they went with "we couldn't evaluate signatures, so we ask you to throw out all mail-in ballots" as opposed to "let the signatures be audited by us or a 3rd party", which might have been better received. The fact that they went for invalidating all mail-in ballots, my guess is they didn't think it would work.
I’m all for all investigations and audits to be conducted and if mass election fraud took place we should know. I’m tired of the sideshow circus.
Your know what nm
I don't... That why I stipulated the assumption. Even you agreed it looked/read silly. I was commenting that if it was whittled down - even with the intended bias - the essential facts that the witness was making a link based on "meeting someone who knew someone else that told them something bad happened". I was just making an observation. I made no claim about knowing it was true. I will watch the hearing, though... but probably on 2x speed.
Did Arizona and GA certify today
@AdvanceManExtraordinaire how did he get the packets and is that the 2020 election
So broadly you had the 1st string lawyer lawsuits, then Giuliani's Kitchen Sinks, and Sidney's Krakens and they tried to get these affidavits in the later two (Krakens not through court yet) but have been having trouble making a solid case for witnesses.
This string of hearings in swing states seem to revolve around convincing state senates to pass laws or resolutions to seize control of the electors in the state and ignore the majority vote and either give them to Trump or say whole election is a fraud let's throw it out. Which some would argue is within their legal purview although the standard of evidence required doesn't seem to be the same.
@Dedkraken, you just advanced to level 11!
That is a great question for a cross examination
And yes
sorry I meant state house/senates
That’s a great question for a press conference @AdvanceManExtraordinaire
In general, if you hypothetically knew there was widespread fraud, do you think state legislator should overrule the popular vote results?
My prediction is that he got packets (if this happened at all) he got packets of the uploaded data not the voting machine transferring information from it self to the internet
Or vice versa
sure but do they know there is widespread fraud or think it? Plus the fact the POTUS is summoning them to the white house and intimidating them into doing this plus interfering in the certifications is highly irregular
I cant even imagine if Obama was secreting away state senators and house reps to wine and dine them and get them to hand over electors 👀