LOL james you are going to be absolutely horrified and shocked once you find out how prosecuting attorneys operate, if you ever do

You are gonna be horrified and shocked when you learn affidavits is meaningless on its own

no criminal would ever see justice if the legal system worked like you keep insisting it does

no one is arguing this. the only person saying this is you projecting it onto us

https://youtu.be/Q_get06-tgo @SPEARS this is the quality of affidavits presented in court

Ok... so credible employees including democrats and election workers with decades of experience witnessing a crime that has mathematical data supporting their claims isn’t enough to have a hearing. What else would you like to see in order to earn the hearing?

No , all I said was affidavits are meaningless if it’s all you got @SPEARS it’s you that is projecting

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire define credible

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire It would appear only a selfie from Biden giving a thumbs up and holding up a handful of empty ballots could be credible evidence.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire In my opinion, the analyses of the Edison Research NEP data feed to the NYT that I have seen so far appear to assume that all data collected by NEP is received directly from the source Voting System. I have seen no stipulation or accommodation for the fact that a significant amount of that data was collected manually with humans making phone calls directly to precincts to get preliminary numbers and then those numbers being later superseded by data scraped from Sec of State sites that publish preliminary results intermixed with some automated feeds. Because of this less than consistent method of gathering the data and the haphazard way that it is managed through the night. I reject the notion that anyone could with any degree of certainty be able to tell that data was indicative of fraud. They are starting with a false premise based on an incorrect assumption. You can know this, because they do not acknowledge anywhere that the intercepted data is anything other than an accurate representation of the data that resided in the voting systems. It simply was not.

Also all the math is based on certain presupposes axioms after the fact, as with braynard you have to be willing to trust his data set (that he gathered on his own) @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

interesting james. lets hold the mail in votes to the same standard then. because we know at least one mail in vote is fraudelent we should throw out all of the mail in votes.

@yetiCodes like I said before voter fraud has been proven in the past

@SPEARS that is the basis of the trump team argument

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire We aren't the arbiters of what qualifies for a hearing. We have people for that. People who know more than we do about a lot of things that are appropriately applicable here. It isn't up to us and that isn't by accident of for bad reasons.

this was almost 2 weeks ago and its obviously a biased judge. if this was the PA one this judge was debunked by a higher court

All biased judges haha

So many excuses

Trump appointed judges are biased

Federalist society judges are biased

I understand this. Seeing as it’s a piece of the puzzle, do you think it deems being formally investigated is the question, given that If fraud did indeed occur, then the data do show exactly what is expected.

George w bush appointed judges are biased

If you're human, you're probably biased.

@Kpgmr72, you just advanced to level 2!

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire I have no problem with going to court so far it’s all speculation and would get destroyed in a cross examination for being just that

I disagree that we should always defer to the justice system. Again I can bring examples of when the justice system got rulings wrong.

This lady would be eviscerated on the stand.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire What's not being formally investigated and how do you know that?

so the argument is that because some affidavit were tainted and found to be untrue, that every affidavit is? Do you realize what you are arguing here? You keep saying "under cross examination it would be found that these people are lying." Awesome. Lets see it then. Oh we won't, because the judge didn't even let it get to that point

The main problem he had with the affidavits is that they just offered /anyone/, regardless of their position, regardless of if they were a poll worker, regardless of ANYTHING RELATIVE to the quality of affidavits besides being unable to prove a claim false.

This is not a biased opinion.

It's based in reason.

As far as I’m aware, there are currently no formal hearings where both sides are presenting evidence and being cross examined.

Why should I take the affidavit of some unknown construction worker that has never worked at a polling station in his life?

Who has never been a witness.

@Maw I think that’s a fair point.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire Ok. That's not investigation. Just curious.

@SPEARS I am pointing out that if you present affidavits that cant be proven false there is no punishment. Thus the whole “they did it under penalty of law” argument falls flat on its face as a reason to give them credibility

so youre saying one instance of fraud, or a system that inherently will produce fraud--that all things that stemmed from this system should be discreditted?

I'm saying that it's unreliable evidence due to the method in which was used to gain the affidavits.

That's what the judge said, yes.