"OK, I’ve seen enough. What’s going to happen to these guys (McCabe, Comey & the gang of treasonous thugs)? @SenJohnKennedy @MariaBartiromo @TheJusticeDept They, and many others, got caught. DO SOMETHING!!!"Who is he quoting?
From 200,000 votes to less than 10,000 votes. If we can audit the total votes cast, we will easily win Arizona also!That's a comment on an azcentral politics story that says "Biden's lead in Arizona keeps shrinking, but not enough for Trump to overtake him."
Big Jim is the greatest!That's a comment on the KDKA story, "West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice refused to acknowledge that Joe Biden won the presidential election."
It took long enough! What is taking North Carolina so long? Are they looking for more ballots to fix that one also? Now with a recount, we will win Georgia also. Pennsylvania & Michigan wouldn’t let our Poll Watchers & Observers into counting rooms. Illegal!That's a comment on the AP story, "BREAKING: Donald Trump wins Alaska."
It attempted to alter our election and got caught?That's a comment on a tweet that reads "What do we know about Dominion?" I don't know what that means!
NOW 73,000,000 LEGAL VOTES!That's a comment on his own post from the 7th: "THE OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS. I WON THE ELECTION, GOT 71,000,000 LEGAL VOTES. BAD THINGS HAPPENED WHICH OUR OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SEE. NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WERE SENT TO PEOPLE WHO NEVER ASKED FOR THEM!"
Nobody wants to report that Pennsylvania and Michigan didn’t allow our Poll Watchers and/or Vote Observers to Watch or Observe. This is responsible for hundreds of thousands of votes that should not be allowed to count. Therefore, I easily win both states. Report the News!And:
I am pleased to announce that I have given my full support and endorsement to Ronna McDaniel to continue heading the Republican National Committee (RNC). With 72 MILLION votes, we received more votes than any sitting President in U.S. history - and we will win!And:
Everyone is asking why the recent presidential polls were so inaccurate when it came to me. Because they are FAKE, just like much of the Lamestream Media!That's not including the retweeting, of which there is much at the link.
I looked for an answer to my question about Dominion and think it's a voting machine company. Gateway Pundit, commenting on Trump's tweet, says: "We’ve reported that there were numerous instances in this election where votes were switched from President Trump to Joe Biden in states predominantly using Dominion voting machines.... Tonight the President responded that the Dominion voting systems were involved in election fraud and they got caught."
Posts
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208Tucker Carlson played a tape the congressional testimony of professor of computer science from Princeton who examined the Dominion vote counter. In fact, it is a computer that, he said, lacks any meaningful built-in security. To demonstrate this,, he wrote a code for the Dominion vote counter he was examining that, when activated, changed a vote from A to a vote for B. He said anyone with a basic of knowledge of computer coding could easily write such a code.
It is a fact between 20 and 24 of these computer were used to count votes in Pennsylvania. It is also a fact that one of these computer vote counters used in the election was found to have changed close to a thousand votes from votes for Trump to votes for Biden.
Surely Ann would agree that this evidence calls for every Dominion vote counter used in the election be carefully be examined by a computer science expert.
Readering said...
Bruce Hayden, not an attorney? The Rules of Evidence apply to affidavits, just like they apply to documents offered as exhibits.
If someone says "The democrat poll workers kicked me out while I was trying to observe them counting ballots." or "I saw the democrats move all of the observers too far away to see what the people counting ballots were doing." that is direct witness testimony.
When you file in court you file witness statements. They are called evidence. Texts and anything written can be admitted as well. So are the numerous videos being posted. Pictures are commonly submitted.
Hearsay covers I heard someone say "XXXX" and secret recordings. Essentially things that cannot be cross examined and to keep people from being jackasses.
You can call these affidavits hearsay because you don't like them but it is stupid.
It's stupid to say it's not hearsay because the affiant is reputable, as you did earlier in the thread. It's stupid to suggest it's per se not hearsay because it's in a declaration, as was suggested in the thread. It's stupid to write things to try to distract from other things you wrote. Please keep writing stupid stuff.
Blogger Readering said...
"The only difference with affidavits versus live/video testimony is that there are no credibility determinations. So pope and porn star treated same."
The difference being that the affidavit must be proven hearsay in court and cannot be dismissed out of hand if it has been entered as evidence. is this not so?
Stephen,
As to Mr. Correira's post: As I said, he was a forensic attorney, and the people who responded to his post identify their credentials; a great many are themselves CPAs or fraud investigators themselves. What he meant by "red flags" is laid out in great detail in his two previous posts on the same subject, which are further down the page in the same blog. (Just like here, the newest material comes first, so they're further down.) I mentioned all three posts in my own here; can't think how you missed that.
Basically, a "red flag" is something that suggests further examination. He is at pains to point out that, considered individually, most "red flags" are indications of plain old human dumbfuckery, not malicious intent. That said, when they cluster in such large numbers, all pointing in one direction, they are pretty clear evidence that someone has been playing tricks. Take the Dominion machines as a solitary example: If they were just defective, prone to natural maladjustment, &c., you would expect errors, sure, but they wouldn't all go Biden's way. At present we don't know whether they do or not, but if one machine can transfer about 6K votes from Trump to Biden, I'd say that the results of all of them (32 in the state, wasn't it?) deserve reexamination. Wouldn't you?
Stephen, a couple more things:
Yes, you can take me as saying that there were lots of independent bits of fraud going on, some of it organized (and presumably with the complicity of at least some election officials -- you know, those people you assure me, w/o evidence, must be trusted implicitly), a lot of it freelance. Correira tries to put all of this on a single page (in those other posts I've already mentioned), but I doubt that any one person is in a position to quantify all the forms of fraud potentially in play here. Like the dead-people-voting thing: You can "crowdsource" searches for, e.g., centenarians voting in a particular state, and find out if they are (a) alive and (b) if not, voted anyway; but you can only do it if some platform makes it possible for many people to add data to a spreadsheet, and apparently attempts to put such a thing up on Facebook (e.g.) have been repeatedly swatted down by the company. And even if all the labor were done by one individual, who would dare publish the resulting document? It would be "misinformation" the instant it went up. Even if true. Hell, especially if true.
That's the problem with all of this stuff: It's deemed "fake news" before it has the chance to be any kind of news at all. If you have legitimate doubts about any result, you'd best keep them to yourself, because anyone whose opinion might matter has his fingers firmly in his ears. If it manages to get publicity somehow, the WaPo (say) will insist that you've recanted, your own voice and face on video (and tapes of your "interrogation") insisting that you haven't to the contrary. The Star Chamber has nothing on this, apart from physical torture. Don't you dare say bad-nasty things about our big, beautiful election!
Oh, and the name's "Thomson," no "p."
And one more thing:
You remember the Bush TANG "scandal," right? One guy (Charles Johnson) saw and proved within hours of "60 Minutes" running that the "incriminating" "document" was in fact typed on MS Word with default settings, superscripted small letters for dates and everything, and run through a Xerox machine several times to make it look "old." He put the proofs online; they were supplemented within a few days with loads of other information, about military terminology in the early 70s and other things. The provenance was questioned. &c. "60 Minutes" eventually -- many weeks on, I think -- climbed back down; Dan Rather never did.
Could the same thing happen today? I doubt it. Because "60 Minutes" were the "experts," and their good work wasn't to be contaminated by some pajama-wearing dude in a basement (no, I don't mean Biden; I mean Johnson). His blog, and all the various contributions to it, would be "misinformation," and so it would be difficult even to link to it, or to share its content privately for that matter. (Someone was banned from a social-media app -- I forget which one -- just last week for sharing a "disfavored" pair of links with another writer, privately. No one could see them but the sender and the recipient. It was still no-go.) And now conservatives are accused of cowardice for taking their writings off Facebook and moving their platforms to places that won't pre-emptively censor them. We're getting awfully near samizdat territory here, and I hate feeling like that.
Michelle,
I appreciate your response and will take a look at the other posts.
I am still struck by the fact that Trump's lawyers have been unable to state these theories in coherent form in any pleading that they have filed to date.
Lawyers have a lot of freedom to formulate allegations that they are not certain that they can prove, so long as they have a reasonable basis for believing that what they are alleging could be proven after all the evidence is available. Indded, with a client like Trump, who demands the most zealous representation, they should be expected to formulate the most sweeping allegations that are ethically permissible.
What lawyers cannot do is submmt allegations to a court that they know or should know that they cannot prove.
So what do we see in the filed cases in the decisive states? Not one of them alleges the kind of sweeping, multi factor fraud that you are describing. Not one of them alleges that the fraud would decisively change the outcome in the state. None of them refers to or relies on the Dominion theory. In addition, we see the Arizona lawyer for Trump specifically informing the court that he is not claiming fraud. And the lawyers in the Pennsylvania suit withdrawing, presumably because they have become uncomfortable with what the client is asking them to say in court. Moreover, the big juicy suit that Giuliani promised has not materialized. And this failure is despite there being a million dollar reward out there for evidence of fraud.
I do legal ethics for a living, and what this tells me is that these lawyers, who are ethically obliged to make any allegation that they believe they can prove, do not believe that any of these allegations can be proved and that they are risking sanctions from the court if they were to present these big ticket, election changing theories, because there is no factual basis for them.
So though its easy for you to dismiss the uniform, bipartisan testimony of every election official and expert who says that there was no systemic fraud or loss of votes, courts and opposing lawyers, even Trump's lawyers, have to take it seriously. And what they believe is that it's true.
Remember, these are the same officials who are certifying Republican gains in the House, and Republican victories for Senate, and basically the same people who certified Trump's electoral college victory in 2016. Back then, Hillary conceded, and graciously, and the Obama White House provided a prompt and smooth transition.
So why not accept the outcome? I have never supported Trump, but I have never questioned that he won in 2016. I expect my opponents to show similar good judgment and respect for the democratic process. And I don't see them exercising it. Why the heck not?
Post a Comment