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.

With such little standards as being unable to prove something is false.

I actually don’t think that’s a fair point. This again goes back to the murder analogy, and I admit I’m not familiar with the justice system. But if the construction worker witnesses someone on the street getting shot in the head in cold blood, vs watching ballot counters say “Biden” 90,000 times in a row, why is he any less credible in the latter?

Like, not even certifying these are US citizens. That they have some sort of connection to elections work.

but mail in votes are ok? you realize this is the exact same logic and line of thinking that is putting mail in votes in question?

Also listening to Robert Barnes talk about how the judges are unfair or whatever carries less weight to me after learning he is involved in some trump fraud cases

??? Why would you bring up mail in ballots when we're talking about overturning election results.

In a legal sense.

I believe that has already been done in GA and in WI. Hand recounts - comparing contemporaneous paper ballots - to tabulated results are the exact way that one would verify that there was no vote flipping taking place. The problem is that it doesn't fit the narrative that people want to be true. But scientifically, it's pretty absolute. Also, keep in mind that most states have implemented Risk limiting audits where they look at random lots of tabulated votes and hand count them and compare it to the tabulated votes. There is a formula for how many votes need to be included in the audit depending on the margin of victory and the number of votes cast. In the case of GA, this would have been 1.5m random lots. Raffensberger decided that it was simpler to just do a complete hand recount, which is the most comprehensive way to ensure that votes are being tabulated correctly.

At least ballots try to determine via a database if you're a resident of the US.

there was not an actual hand recount in GA that compared tabulated data to hand counted ballots

there process for collecting affidavits was inherently flawed and prone to abuse. just like the voting systems in question.

It was done under the guise of an "audit" because that is what was required and how they paid for it, but it was factually a hand recount.

Then why do you claim bias when the affidavits are rejected on the basis that there is no fundamental process of reasonable validation taking place?

because the bias is selectively choosing when to apply logic to fit a personal agenda

... how?

Because you say so?

I think it's completely reasonable.

You just contradicted yourself.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire It takes standards of merit to make it to court. The gish galloping filings thus far are pr stunts...and apparently they are hitting their mark. No offense. Just piling in a bunch of claims doesn't qualify on its own.

You can make the argument that judges have an agenda or don't know what they're doing but they have judicial boards to answer to as well. These suits are designed specifically to get the responses you are giving, not legal ones.

because a case was rightfully dismissed for inherently being prone to error. the case was about a system being prone to error \

i'm not the one doublethinking here

Therefore we can't even determine if the system is prone to error because the evidence of the system being prone to error is in error.