Ah sure sure, and why is it that none of these affidavits are admitted to court? Maybe instead of affidavits I should call them...hearsay. No, it's clearly a grand conspiracy to keep the people from knowing the truth!
If you say "I have directly seen, participated in, or have found evidence of fraud" it is not "hearsay." It's clear that you're trying to use the phrase "hearsay" to dismiss them outright without having to actually check the veracity of the claims because "hearsay" is not admissible evidence, but an affidavit is admissible evidence by all accounts of the law.
Why have they not been admitted into the courts? Because the cases keep being thrown out of technicalities or have been refused an evidentiary hearing. It does not mean the evidence is wrong or incorrect necessarily, but that the courts have been throwing the cases out. (Not all of the cases, mind you, and not all affidavits would apply to all lawsuits.)
There are a few reasons for this pattern. For starters, courts don't generally want to be involved in electoral matters as they're meant to present themselves as neutral arbiters, even if it's clear that many of the judges are activists. Secondly, we saw a lot of political pressure being placed on individuals to rule against trump, with threats of violence directed towards people such as the leader of the General Services Administration, Emily Murphy, and Wayne County Republican certifiers who received threats to certify the election despite their objection towards the fact the books were unbalanced. This does not include the issue that judges have of being integrated into politics and wanting to stay in good terms with their political peers, so they don't want to step out of line too much. Some of the technicalities included that the case failed under laches, meaning it was too late to sue, or that they didn't have standing to sue such as with the Supreme Court case. The effect when many courts do this is that they don't even have to look at the merits of the case at all, and can just dismiss it or make it so they can throw out a case outright.
I never claimed an overarching conspiracy that all the courts were in on. It's more likely that self-interest, bias, and political partisanship is to blame. What I am saying is that because there wasn't a court like SCOTUS to address these concerns or any real means of seeking justice, what has resulted is a lot of disgruntled people who have not had their day in court or have been able to seek their concerns addressed through a proper legal channel. This is how governments lose the consent of the governed, and this is how revolutions start, if the founding fathers are anything to go by given that they had no means to seek parliament or the judiciary for a fair trial given it was always in England.
Oh you poor soul, little did you realize I don't subscribe to either party. I just despise a specific cult.
I don't either, but I try to base my views on what evidence I have and on empirical data rather than positioning myself in opposition to a specific ideology and base my positions on being it's antithesis. My goal is to find the truth, not to comply with some elephant or ass.
Stop moving the fucking goal post, the claim was that there is mass election fraud from the Biden Campaign.
A) No, this is not moving the goal posts. What I am pointing out is that she may be representative of a larger issue within politics, given that ballot harvesting and coercion of the poor and elderly into voting certain ways have been issues in past elections and it may be representative of a wider trend in politics. You told me you wanted evidence of election fraud, here is evidence of election fraud.
B) The core thesis was that there were many indicators that would call the legitimacy of the election into question, especially within specific parts of various counties such as Fulton, Maricopa, Wayne, etc. I doubt the Biden campaign, itself, was involved as much as people who wanted Biden to win were heavily involved. It's an important distinction, and it indicates to me you were looking for evidence of direct involvement from Biden or his campaign which I was not looking for.
...Is this for real? It's his job.
It's an appeal to authority and ethos. Just because someone's vocation is something does not mean that they are necessarily right or correct. People say or do incorrect things all the time, and it's our job to hold them to account for it. You can not base an epistemological argument on someone's credentials alone without additional context or ability to cross-examine their work. There's a reason scientists go through a rigorous process of peer review, testing, replication, metanalysis, etc., and not just follow the guy who has the most diplomas from various institutions.
When he does not cite his methodology, his sources, where he got the information from and when it conflicts with independent reports that just cross-reference public records, I begin to doubt his authenticity, especially when he has motive to lie given he oversaw the installation of dominion machines and refuses to cooperate with the President's legal team to see each other's data, as per the phone call with Raffensperger.
Ah yes, because saying nothing is totally better.
And I was the one accused of moving the goal posts. You presented the argument that he had no reason to help a "blue president," and I presented several to why it would be in his best interest, and now somehow the argument is whether or not it's wise for him to say nothing. I met your argumentative standards by speculating one potential motivation that's feasible given what we do know. Don't twist the argument I'm making into something it's obviously not.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/15/politics/camilo-sandoval-voter-integrity-fund/index.html
"Matt Braynard, told CNN the group has found some evidence of voters illegally voting across state lines, they haven't made any evidence public"
Okay, you gonna share that shit or what?
Aside from the fact CNN is basically a propaganda network at this point who have just been lying non-stop for the last 6 years, I can say that they have presented evidence at both the Arizona hearing and that all their evidence is literally cross-referencing public records, cold-calls, etc.
Here's him presenting his evidence at the Arizona State Legislature.
I haven't heard him talk about the state line claims, specifically, though he has talked about illegal immigrant voting and ballots being cast in the names of people who had previously moved out of the state, including Nahshon Garrett, an Olympian who had someone vote in his name in Maricopa county.
Here is his affidavit.
Additionally, here's
Matt Bryand's sworn report for the Georgia case.
I'm sure you'll hold him to the same standard as Gabriel Sterling given they're both men with credentials and won't hold him to a standard you didn't hold Sterling to at all.
"Me waiting for evidence of widespread voter fraud."
At this point, I need you to define your terms of what qualifies as "evidence" in your mind, as if you keep rejecting sworn witness statements under threat of perjury, expert testimony, statistical anomalies, forensic analysis, video evidence, etc., I want you to explain to me what qualifies as "evidence." (Keep in mind that "evidence" is not synonymous with "proof," as a piece of evidence is just an indication something has occurred, not some smoking gun)
Also, just so we can be as specific as possible, define "widespread." Because if I'm citing very regionalized cases of potential tampering, vote manipulation or other specialized circumstances, that could not be seen as "widespread" because it's regionalized. Do you mean in regards to ballot number? Area between irregularities in polling places? What do you mean exactly?
Also note that in this conversation we're using "fraud" in a more colloquial sense so it includes impropriety, not just the strictly legal definition. The Trump Lawyer from that cherry-picked snippet is probably trying to be charitable and assume impropriety, as fraud may imply intent which is very hard to prove within a court of law.
Wow, imagine unironically saying "no u" and having that be your entire rebuttal. I guess charity and good faith is out the window.
@EOTFOFYL
