Printable View
I can see where this is headed, just like all the other well-documented voter fraud cases. Some silly judge will just say, okay, all you bad people out there who did this, don't cheat in elections again. In some cases, usually if it is an election official, some slap on the wrist and a minor fine will be all they'll get. Not even as bad as paying a speeding ticket. Then the Dems will just do it again next time.
So far it hasn't been that way at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
It's been, nope that's not fraud.
Is it not odd to you guys that the claims in press conferences haven't been the claims in court? Or that the claims keep changing as they get shot down? Or that they're getting wilder and wilder?
The SCOTUS case opinion Friday and the Trump campaign case opinion at WI today in no way discounted or disputed the facts or merits of either case.
Hiding behind legal technicalities to avoid judicial responsibility will only be tolerated for so long.
Looking for legal technicalities while pretending you're being robbed is being tolerated but is also stoking a needless loss of faith in our system.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
I guess our Constitution is now just a “legal technicality.”Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
They don’t care about truth and never have cared about much except their own power and next drinking lunch period!Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
For at least a century the liberal Dems have been stealing elections and they don’t give a rip about it as witnessed here on BB&B.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Someone speculated that the SC, including the three Trump appointees, punted because they wanted to appease Biden and the Dems to avoid them packing the court. Of course, that is just speculation and probably off base, but...well, you know, when push comes to shove folks will throw someone else under a bus to protect their turf. Just saying.
Sure. I am sure that is what all 80 judges that rejected this nonsense were up to.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
You're sure? Well, as I mentioned it was just speculation by one pundit. Of course, it was a specific reference to the SC, nothing was said of those lower courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The fact that the courts are ruling the same (SC and lower courts alike) points to something more common than the SC “protecting its turf.”Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Not sure who the pundit is, but his speculation on this issue undermines his credibility in total.
The system was rigged and needs fixing quickly!! All of these links on Newsmax.com
Audit Finds Mich. County's Dominion Voting Was Rigged to Create Fraud
Matthew DePerno to Newsmax TV: Dominion System Changes Votes
Amistad: 'Bombshell' Antrim Audit May Impact 5 Swing States With Dominion
Trump Touts Report on Rigged Michigan Vote
Saying it to Newsmax and saying it in front of a judge are very different things. Have you wondered at all why so many of these types of things somehow disappear and you don't hear about them anymore once they reach a court?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
You mean like, “where are these illegal votes now, where did they come from and why were so many destroyed”?Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
As far as the people saying what they saw and heard, most all of them talking actually signed affidavits to the fact. They aren’t disappearing and would gladly say the same in court.
Many of them have. But as it turns out, they're not credible or just plain wrong on the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/20/affidavit-giuliani-vote-fraud/
Quote:
“If he is talking about affidavits that the swearers will submit or that Giuliani will submit as their authorized agent in a judicial proceeding, they would be at risk of a perjury prosecution,” said Julia Simon-Kerr, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. “If he’s talking about affidavits he’s collected to wave in front of reporters, but that won’t be submitted in a judicial proceeding, they would not subject the swearers to a perjury prosecution.
“Given the disjunction between what is actually happening in the courts and what he is talking about,” Simon-Kerr continued, “I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the latter.”