Yeah I’d recommend watching the whole thing rather than clickbait youtube tries to get trending.
The indian lady trolling at the michigan hearing is unrivalled. Triggered half the people in the room. Hero of our times.
Voter Fraud
Has the michigan water fraud been dismissed? I mean, you’re supposed to be getting clear liquid out of the faucet, but when you get yellow/brown liquid and politicians are saying that it’s water, it leaves me scratching my head. It’s gotta be water fraud.
Exactly my take. At this point I’m less concerned with the actual outcome of the election and more with the results of these complaints and the alleged scale. Again it’s like everyone keeps ignoring the fact that regular people are willing to go to jail because they believe they’ve witnessed something wrong here.
They won’t go to jail though, judges have to see their statements and decide what level of scrutiny is applied, this helps determine whether they’re a credible witness. They use different standards of scrutiny in determining credibility. It’s covered in the Legal video I posted.
The standard of scrutiny for a fraud charge is the highest levels, Trump’s lawyers haven’t pushed for it to be scrutinized as fraud. None of the witness are credible, do you seriously want judges to start throwing people in jail for being mistaken?
1 Like
There will be at least one recount i think and it will show if the numbers are significantly off to merit pursuing other recounts. O don’t know about the whole thing of deaf people voting or ballots being cast in people’s names and mailed in. Sounds too far out there. Like people vote by party lines. The group of the ‘late’ main in ballots should be checked for consistency as there were other elected offices (in state) that aren’t voted for.
I would agree with this too. Some cases will get dismissed outright
You enter sitting before that recounts will sway no more that 3000 votes. If this particular one says by let’s say 20000, even though that may be insignificant in presidential election results, it could affect local election and would signify some intentional wrongdoing.
Honestly in this case…yes.
You are either destroying the credibility and eroding the trust of the people in their right to choose their government willfully. Or you believe that government has already done that and betrayed the people it has been elected to serve by falsifying their voice. You don’t get to lie and just say “whoops” about this sort of thing.
I don’t believe these people are coming out on their own. They are working with Trump’s legal team which listens to their side and decided if it can potentially be significant. Im sure the testimony is given in such a way as not to incriminate self.
Even if it’s not significant, the media will still gobble it up and at this point Trump wants to be as loud as he can be about this so it still favors him
From my understanding, for one of the testimonials to result in jail time, someone would have to prove that it constitutes harm to another person.
There is an argument that eroding someone’s trust in elections is harm but that would open a lot of potential options for lawsuits if they set that precedent.
There’s another thing that’s kept people from going to jail and that’s where they make their claims. If you’re not sworn under oath like at one of the hearings, the one with the star witness, you can make exaggerated claims without going to jail.
It’s mostly just theatre, Trump has collected about 150 million dollars so far. None has to be spent on this.
Can trump pardon those people? 😁
Honestly…don’t take this the wrong way but I think you should delve a little deeper into the claims themselves, the evidence presented and the people making them.
I get the impression you believe this is nothing more than a stunt by Trump and his people to raise money or other purposes. I can understand why you would think that too. I also believe it’s makes it very easy for you to dismiss everything around it.
This is an overview. Are you referring to any of these cases? If so, which ones so I can look them up more in depth.
Can you also give an example of two if a testimony that would warrant prugery?
Forgot th link
A sworn affidavit in and of itself is punishable as perjury the same as on the stand. A sworn statement is a sworn statement in any form legally.
If you’re looking for particular instances, crazy lady from greyback’s video while seemingly batshit crazy makes some very serious accusations, and she is under oath. Watch her full testimony.
The other one that has my interest is the truck driver in PA claiming to have picked a truck up in NY filled with ballots and drove it to PA where it disappeared. This is a huge claim that needs to be investigated. If true it a lot of laws, if false, why the hell would you make up such a wild story with such serious implications under oath?
1 Like
I’ll check it out later in the day
1 Like
She wasn’t under oath during the hearing, she had previously been under oath at a trial but wasn’t found to be a credible witness. The second senator mentions it.
I have been, so far there’s nothing to substantiate any of their claims. No dead people voted, no 120% voted - it was actually 49% of the voters in that area. The recount matched and will likely match when they do it again. It was done comparing paper ballots to the electronic record and they matched.
So far it has been. Not one piece of substantiated evidence has appeared. Yes they have found minor inconsistencies and even a case of fraud but nothing on the scale required.
Except it isn’t me that’s dismissing it, it’s Republican judges, senators and poll workers dismissing them.
1 Like
Well then at this point you’re convinced and there’s no further reason to continue discussing it.
The question is why are you convinced, it’s been a month. He’s literally lost 39 court cases. There’s no evidence the election was rigged and not fair.
You could google proof in five minutes that the Trump lawyers are lying to everyone. That what they say in court isn’t what they claim in public. You could see how they are attacking the foundation of democracy.
You’re right though, we are going on circles. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, at what point do they lose credibility? For me they’re past that point.